Lower Ratings

[jkwiatkowski]

I noticed that with introduction of the new "rating table" more

people tend to give lower ratings, especially 3/3. In my opinion

most new members do not realise that a 3 used to mean "below

average" and they use the rating scale without much consideration. I

wonder if this is only my observation.

 

With regards, jk

[bbb1]

We all have noticed that new rain of 3/3 and had a difficult discussion with that topic, but with no results!

Maybe we have to forget about those 3/3 and just do our photography, cause me, I am a fine exemple of how much ONEs can ruin you with 3/3 rates, but I dont care anymore, I even joked with that on one of my photographs, saying that 3 is my lucky number!

I think that there is no solution to this !

 

Biliana

[mottershead]

It is interesting that so many people have made this observation because the facts are the percentage of 3/3 ratings hasn't changed at all. And, actually the overall average rating through the Rate Recent queue has increased very slightly since the user interface changed, although it is such a small increase it is probably just noise. Several people posted their observation to the contrary. Perhaps they are extrapolating from their own portfolio to the entire site, which may not be such a sound thing to do.

 

The Rate Recent ratings were always quite a bit lower than the ones made directly on the photos, even before the Rate Recent ratings were made anonymous. "3" and "4" were quite rare as direct ratings. "3" isn't that common as an anonymous Rate Recent rating but they do occur, and "4" is quite normal as a RR rating.

 

Now there are a lot more RR ratings relative to direct ratings, which has brought the average down for photographers who used to get more of their ratings from direct rating.

[AntonioC]

Well,

 

considering the recent wave of ratings, I must have become a much worse photographer after the new interface has been adopted. Last week I was quite surprised, now it's ok for me. "3" rulez! ! !

 

ciao!

[JRX94]

Well, let's have 3s disabled, so we can start talking about 4s soon.

[david_arran]

I haven't done a statistical analysis on the ratings my own photos have achieved, but my gut feeling is that my own ratings are actually getting higher. It's only one indicator of my progress as a photographer - if more people like what I produce, then I must be doing something right, no? More importantly, <b><i>I</i></b> feel that I'm getting better, my technical skills are improving, both behind the camera, and driving the mouse, from scanning through to the tweaking and sharpening that's necessary in photoshop.

<br><br>

I could never be a real artist though, my skin is too thick, I don't fly off the handle when someone doesn't like what I do, and I live by the maxims "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like". So I'll chug happily along, content to be an enthusiastic amateur (a very miscontrued word, IMHO), and hope to ascend from the rank of novice just as soon as I allow myself to.

<br><br>

I've tried to stay out of the ratings debate, it's very controversial, but I certainly feel that the increased number of ratings gives a more meaningful average. I'm very happy that more people seem to be seeing my photos and expressing an opinion about them, albeit in a fleeting, "drive-by rating" kind of way. It's important to remember, no matter who you are, David Bailey, Ansel Adams, or Lord Lichfield, that there will be someone, somewhere who doesn't like what you produce and will express their opinion, rating it "below average", much to the artist's horror. There's only one piece of advice pertinent to these situations - live with it, it's not going to change.

<br><br><br>

David

<br><br>

Always remember, life is too short to drink cheap beer.

[kardolan]

I noticed this 3/3 raters on my pictures, and on others that REALLY don't deserve a 3/3 !

 

What socked me is that these people often don't take time to explain why they give low rate on pictures that are obsiously not under average.

 

I suggest disabling ANONYMOUS rating. No more cowards.

[yann_r.]

Even the best photographers don't receive ONLY 6s and 7s.<br>

Low ratings are useful, anonymous ratings are useful, an anonymous 3 has a sense, a better one than a public "WOW! 7/7".<p>

I don't always agree Brian (cause I'd like to see more importance given to comments and critiques) but I'd like to see 1s and 2s back and counted to make many seeing the chance they have to receive 3s.

[bbb1]

Brian,

 

I have to say something for myself :) Since the new Rating interface, I receive so much 3/3 that usually I didnot receive!

I mean for an average photograph of mine I received 15 times 3/3 and you are saying that there is no increase of 3/3 rates! But NOW I am used to those low rating, but still hurt cause NOBODY IS COMMENTING!

But you know that issue! so it is a waste of time to talk over it!

 

But, also I did noticed, on my photographs, that usually I get 3/3 from new users! so, this is on purpouse, just to take me off from the list :(

 

And as someone said it before me, I thought of me to be a little bit over the average photographer, but it seems NOW that I am a very bad photographer !

 

Be well dear Brian :)

Biliana

[rjsc]

I think David mentioned what's the most important aspect on the new rating system --> "...but I certainly feel that the increased number of ratings gives a more meaningful average." --> This is also the nightmare of any inflationary average. I don't know the real number of members rating daily but a photo with less than 25-35 ratings doesn't have, IMHOI, a meaningful average. I completely agree with David and tough we cannot be sure about the true intention of a given single value we MUST believe that every singe one is a numerical representation of a member opinion on a determined photo. If we start discussing intentions and "vengeance ratings", "mate ratings" and others one of these days someone will rise the problem that some photographers receive "true comments" and others receive "mate comments". Problems with this new rating interface? Sure. Now we have the ratings given at such an high-speed that some ratings are indeed charged with a decreased critique/analysis quality and the compressed version of the photo sometimes adulterates the photo but it also has it's qualities: higher number of ratings (as mentioned before), faster, friendly interface, etc. Some of you will say that I placed the rating speed in qualities and problems. Yes I did. The faster interface is a great tool when used with criteria and a nightmare if used as an automatic 3/3, 3/4 rating shotgun.

As to ending with the anonymous ratings I just don't think that's the solution. I'm not a professional and I only starter with photography in a more "enthusiastic amateur" way :) last summer but I'm sure that all the pros here will be glad to know something that they don't know during physical exhibits or similar events: some work is not a 7/7 for everybody. If we could have the 3/3 and 3/4 with a comment, well...that would be like a 7/7 IMHO.

Please apologize if my English didn't got trough.

Best regards to you all.

[grinder]

Again if I where Brian I would not give a crap about the ratings system and move on to something else. If a 3 bothers you maybe you should simply stop submitting photos. If you know they are good then be happy. Why care what some lunatic on the INTERNET thinks about your photo. They may only be rating it to stir the bee nest. Get thicker skin or only show photos to friends and love ones. A 3 doesn't evict you, fire you, or steal your livestock, it is a number for goodness sake.

 

This will most certainly offend some it s not meant to it is a suggestion to realize that allot of people on the INTERNET are not right in the head and everyone has different tastes, you can not be upset by what a person you don't know and have not met says about your work. I am not trying to single out anyone.

 

Care about what you think not others. Respect yourself and your work. Don't let a number ruin your day.

 

With all due respect. ,Grinder

[grinder]

David Arran has a lovely philosophy about life, very well said David.

[bbb1]

Again and again!

The ISSUE with the RATING is not if ONE LIKES OR DISLIKES your Photograph!

 

Cause if ONE doesnot LIKE your Photograph, that doesnot mean that your photograph is Bad! no?

 

But the Aesthetics and Originality of your Photograph! But it seems that here on Photo NEt that is not the case!

So it seems more that on PN a lot of new users are kinda ignorant about Photograhpy!

 

So, I say it again, change the rating system to LIKE/DISLIKE and it will be much more FAIR!

 

 

Thanks,

Biliana

[steve_bingham]

Ratings really can be a double edge sword - they cuts both ways. On one side the photographer often gets real feedback from the general public. (This would be even more so if the photographer were anonymous.) This, in many ways, is a reality check. It can be a pat on the back or a finger wagging. This is a good thing. Honest feelings expressed openly by honest people is the backbone of all good societies.

 

The other side of the sword is more dangerous. The malicious side (as practiced on occasion by Mr Z - alias Bailey) can negate all the good from the other side. This, of course, is because of the total anonymity of the site (Hey, it gets more clicks. I understand. It's a business!) It is too bad that a few choose to use the site for (perceived) personal advancement (how silly) - or as a way of inflating their own weak ego (as in Mr Z's case). Then, of course, there are those with many "names". Cowardice is not a good quality.

 

So you see, photo.net is what it is. A damn good site to post your images on. A place to at least get some public input from. A place where your picture can be seen by many (if that's important to you). A place where someone like Bob Atkins can post some excellent reviews and have them seen by hundreds of thousands. It is the granddaddy of all good photo sites.

 

When I started on photo.net a million years ago (at least it seems so) it was a lot friendlier place. Like a small town were neighbors were helping neighbors. But it grew - and grew - and grew - and became like a big city where anonymity is the rule. Where neighbor does not know neighbor - or care to know. And that's fine. To expect absolute fairness in such an environment is pretty silly. And so we get the good Samaritans right along with the muggers. Photo.net is simply a another web site among billions of web sites. Heck, I even own a couple (one gets 3 million hits a month - whatever the heck that means - I don't). 3s? Not to worry. We all get them and they mean nothing. Absolutely nothing - unless you know something real and concrete about the person who gave it to you.

[jkwiatkowski]

Thank you everyone. I am flattered by so many responses and now I know there are people who do care about a fair system. Of course, I agree with David that life is too short...

 

Well, I guess that 3 is gonna have to be my lucky number, too : )

 

Dziekuje [that is "thank you" in Polish] jk

[bbb1]

Thank you daer Steve for your sincerity and thoughts! I like what you said!

This site is no longer very Friendly! and it used to be, last year :) but now we are in the Ocean of Internet People! I am a Drop here :) so what can we do? Nothing?

The conclusion is - LIFE is too short, and 3/3 will always survive ha ha :)

Warmest regards to all,

Biliana

[john falkenstine]

Join the drop-lets

[billfoster]

I'm with Yann. Anonymous ratings are not only fine but necessary. 3/3 is a valid opinion and it doesn't require a comment. If I get one 3/3, I don't care. If I get 3 or 4 of them, then I take it that I need to reevaluate that photograph. Two things concern me now: First, if someone gives me a 3/3, did they actually want to give me a 1/1? If someone hates it, I want to know. Bring back the 1s and 2s! Second, as everyone continually notes, its comments not ratings that matter. Ratings, for me, are only a tool to get people to see the photo so i can hope to get a meaningful comment or two. I repeat my oft-expressed wish that we could find a way to encourage more comments on the site.

[japi]

This is fascinating topic, always present in any site of this kind, which require - and live of - critiques/ratings/votes from own peers.

 

I confess I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, photography is a hobby for me, I do not have any technical skills (not even self-developed) other than practice, I do and I post mainly travel photos for my own pleasure and so I don't care about ratings or votes.

 

On the other hand, the curiosity about what other people interested in photography think about my images brought me here to PN as well as to another Portuguese photo site. I post images, I submitt them to ratings and therefore, I obviously care about how they do.

 

One thing I do agree, comments are far more important and relevant than ratings and I have learnt a lot from some fantastic comments and constructive criticism that I received here. It a pleasure when someone takes the time to look at one's photo to view it, analyse it and criticise it. I have a great deal of respect for comments.

 

As far as ratings are concerned - probably a necessary evil as they are a more expedite way of participating in the process than writing a comment - I do not see the point of anonimity.

 

If somebody feels like rating one of my photos a 3, a 2 or a 1, why should he or her do so under anonimity ? What seems to be the problem ? We all are free of liking or disliking - for whatever reason, technique, subject, simply taste, perceived message - a photo. So what's wrong about voting in one's own name ? Do we change opinion, do we soften/sharpen our judgement just because it gets known and public ?

 

In my case, I have NEVER received a signed 3/3 and I have received A LOT (some of them, modesty apart, totally incompreensible)of anonymous 3/3.

 

Is there a message behind ? I think so.

 

A 3/3 means "below average" in both criteria and therefore there is something wrong with the photo for somebody. The photo does not match that person's "average" and if that is the case with one of my photos (and apparently it is the case with many of them)I would like to know why, I would like to improve and do things better.

 

I am totally in favour of fair, harsh if need be, but constructive critcism. I am totally against of use of the coward cover of anonimity to downgrade the work of others.

[mottershead]

Joao, the main reasons that we made the ratings anonymous were

 

(1) people with portfolios posted were reluctant to rate low because they feared retaliation. This fear was quite justified in many cases;

 

(2) many people would rate high in order to get a reciprocal high rating on their own photo.

 

Meanwhile, public ratings did not prevent dishonest people from rating low or high. They simply created a false account from which to do it. It is true that having the names be public made it easier for other members to notice the abuse and report it. However, the fact that ratings are anonymous to most members doesn't mean they are anonymous to the moderators, and the moderators have gotten pretty good at finding abuse.

 

On balance, and despite continued controversy, the anonymous ratings seem to work better, and the number of ratings and photos have increased a lot as a result of introducing anonymous ratings (although not as much as the recent user interface improvements did.)

[jkwiatkowski]

Thank you Joao. I absolutely agree with all you have written.

Thank you Brian. I do appreciate your professionalism.

 

I must admit that all the above comments/opinions have broadened my horizons on the subject. This is far more than I expected from a humble question I posted this morning, and I am happy to have joined PN, no matter how many fair or unfair 3's all you guys have for me : )

[japi]

My pleasure, Janusz.

Brian, thank you for your post. We agree that it never be anything like a perfect so.lution

[alexguerra]

Bring back the 1s and 2s, make the rating system 100% anonymous and delete any further post whining about ratings. That should fix the ratings 'problem'.

[yann_r.]

Hi Alexandre,<p>

<i>[...] make the rating system 100% anonymous [...]</i><br>

You got it!

[japi]

Alexandre,

 

As far as I take this discussion, there is not a ratings "problem".

 

There is a free exchange of points of view, where, as about anything else, nobody is totally right, nobody is totally wrong.

 

I have expressed my point of view and I am not whining about anything. In fact, I find the word, used in the context of this discussion, rather unnecessary and out of context. I would never be able to respond if your post was anonymous.

 

Regards