Rating

[will king]

Tim, I've said this a thousand times. I don't mind low rates as long as thier honest rates, but considering 99% of time the 3/3 ratings are anonymous, I find it hard to believe that honesty had anything to do with it. The fact that almost every photo gets at least one 3/3 ratings takes the sting off getting one myself, but at the sametime it just reenforces my thought that the low anonymous rating is just worthless dishonesty. Not all, but most probably are. I would post to the critique only but it doesn't get nearly the exposure as the rate recent does. Why not circulate critique only photos along with rate recents and just not allow ratinsg on them. If someone doesn't want to comment, than just skip.

[Michael R Freeman]

Will - are the 4, 5, 6 and 7 rates that you get anonymously also "just worthless dishonesty"? Do you mind when someone anonymously rates your photo well, but doesn't explain why they thought it was so good?

 

Your logic is seriously flawed, or you are not being completely "honest" with yourself in how you react to low ratings.

[will king]

Mike, read my statements about 4 or 5 lines up. Yes, it does bother me when people rate my photos 7/7 and don't bother to drop a comment as to why they liked it so much. I explain this in my bio page, so don't give me that same old tired rebuttal. I also speak of all photos not just mine. I see anonymous 3/3 ratings on some really good photos. Don't you think it's just all a bit too odd that 99% of 3/3 ratings are anonymous? I think in the 8 months or so since I've been a member, I have seen maybe 3 instances where someone was brave enough to explained a severely low rating, and in one case it was my photo. I thanked the guy who was nice enough to offer me contructive feedback.

[chris hughes]

Again, I think it comes down to interface. The rating system is set up in such a way that it's

too easy for people to rate low and move on. They should be prompted to make a comment

and have to opt NOT to leave one rather than have to opt TO leave one. I've been designing

interactive interfaces for Web sites for almost a decade and trust me; it isn't rocket science. If

you guide people towards leaving comments many more of them respond than do now. The

system promotes ratings without comment. That's the core of the problem IMO. Bad

interface.

[alexguerra]

Will, a 3/3 rating means nothing more that the photo is 'below average'. How can that be such a terrible or unbelievable thing to get? I'm sure the majority of people rating the queue aren't even aware that the 1s and 2s are disabled. <p>

 

"<i>Don't you think it's just all a bit too odd that 99% of 3/3 ratings are anonymous?</i>" I think it's perfectly normal and expected given the childish behaviour of most people when they get one. At the beginning I used to give them directly and often with a comment and all I got was imediate reciprocation with an equal or lower rating on a couple of my photos and obviously with no comment attached. I simply have no patience for morons so now if I give one is only via anonymous. And remember, the low ratings are disabled (unfortunately), so there's only 'below average' and above.

[wade_rose]

Anyone remeber that song " cant wait to get my picture on the cover of the rollings stones.....:D or PN........LOL

[ken_thalheimer]

Well, my 2 cents: We know the old system didn't work and was changed. Now we have those hiding behind childish anonymity. I think the "True" rating values appear in the box with the person's name next to it. I really only pay attention to comments & the non-anonymous box.

[root]

Given that virtually no one leaves a 3/3 with their name on it, and hardly any leave a 4/4, then you're implying that all the photos on this site are above average.

 

Put yourself in the raters' shoes and do a long rating session. Let me know what percentage of those images you think are below average, using PN as your image universe.

[ken_thalheimer]

No, that was not my implication. Many are merely average. I have rated many and have rated under the critique forum so my name does appear. I most always leave a comment also. I have left 3s & 4s wherein my name does appear. There are shots where for no rhyme or reason a good shot will pull low rates and a mediocre will score high rates all with the shotgun type anonymous rating system. I think your own rating experiments bear this out. I've seen your own work pull in low anonymous rates that are out of line. The mate rate garbage still goes on with high rates for average work. All I'm saying is the old & new systems are flawed and rather than become exasperated I pay no little or no attention to the anonymous rates; only comments and those willing to gave their names displayed even if they rate low. It just makes a flawed system easier to deal with

[minicucci]

I really think people get confused about what the ratings are for, although Brian has been

very clear about this point. The ratings are <b>not</b> for the photographer. They

<b>are</b> for the site and are intended as a way to filter up the most popular images.

When you enter the RR queue, as a rater, you are there as a volunteer for the site to help

perform that filtration, versus having any authentic dialogue with the photographers

involved.

 

Conversely, critique is <b>for</b> the photographer and not really for the site. They are

two completely separate activities that may be done together or apart but neither depends

on the other for legitimacy.

 

In that context, getting 3s versus 4s really means little since the desired product of the

filtration is to search out the 6+s. What can be galling to members is that the limited

exposure within the RR queue combined with a random audience of disparate standards

can produce a "wrong" rating result. PNet probably figures that the results work often

enough, on an average basis, so they are not worried about individual image results. In

effect, the filter is highly imperfect but good enough for aggregate results. From an

arithmetic standpoint, I am not sure I agree since the aggregation of individual wrong

results will produce, on average, a wrong result but I cannot think of a better way to do it,

either.

[gmw w]

How about a rating system that requires a comment if your going to rate a photo low or high. It doesn't even have to have the posters name but at least have a comment as to what you like or dislike. I think the extra effort would cause those strange ratings to slow down. And yes I do see some strange 3/3 on some very good photos by other photographers. Strange simply strange.

[mottershead]

Patricia, thank you for your summary. You've obviously being paying attention to all my vain attempts to explain the purpose of the rating system. As you have realized, the aim of the rating system is to produce a ranking of the thousands of photos so that the few hundred or so photos occupying the first few pages of the TRP are a more interesting starting point for exploring the Gallery than a completely random sample of the millions of photos would be. That is all.

[chris hughes]

Well, maybe that's a part of the problem. Often times I find when working with clients that

they want a Web application to work a certain way but people won't use it like that. They

try and try to modify things to force it to conform to their ideal and in most cases that

never works. The more successful approach happens when clients recognize the way in

which visitors use their application and adapt it to that. In other words, we know that

people want to use the rating system as a way to have their own photos evaluated so why

not accommodate them and adapt the system to more fully satisfy that aim?

 

Or, failing that, if you are absolutely married to the idea that the ratings are for the site

and not the photographer, why not divorce the photos from the photographer's

information? Make them anonymous in BOTH directions and remove the ability to

comment altogether. That way you get your site ratings and no photographer gets bent

about his or her ratings. Then you can set up the critique request system so that it's

specifically focused on getting photographers input on their work. You make it so that

there are no anonymous ratings in the critique area and no rating can be given without a

written comment.

 

Just brainstorming here.

 

And move the forum to PHPBB.

 

;)

[chris hughes]

Oh, and the idea that the 1s and 2s are disabled seems completely absurd to me. If they're

not counted then they shouldn't be offered as an option. Basic interface design here, folks.

[mottershead]

Chris, it is obvious that some people don't like the rating system enough that they've made it their mission to get it changed. If those people represented all 30,000 or so people who are active at any one time on photo.net, then you would certainly have a point. However, it would seem that this is not so, since the number of photos, ratings, and comments have been growing faster since we changed the system. This last week we maxed out on bandwidth on our virtual circuit, and we are negotiating for a fatter pipe. And if complaints in the Site Feedback forum about the rating system are an indicator of anything, they seem to have subsided since we changed it. Hard to believe, I know, but true.

[mottershead]

And I don't like phpBB.

[chris hughes]

Well, I'm not especially opposed to how it works now but I do think that 1) disabling the 1s

and 2s is lame and 2) that the comment system can and should be improved so that people

are directed to comment by default and have to decline to do so if they choose.

 

Why don't you like PHPBB? Threaded discussions are far easier to read and participate in than

the system we're using here IMO.

[mottershead]

I despise threaded discussions. It is just an invitation to go off-topic.

[chris hughes]

I suppose that's fair enough. But I really think that the PHPBB interface is superior to what we

have going on here. I frequent a lot of different forums and this one is by far and away the

most difficult to use. I have no doubt that I'm not the only one who feels this way. But that's a

conversation for a different thread.

[ernst_landgrebe]

Anonymous rating covers the incompetence of many Rater. We abhor anonymous letters, but one practices anonymous Rating with photo.net. Sadly, sadly.

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>"Anonymous rating covers the incompetence of many Rater."</i><P>

 

I'm curious - how would revealing the name of an anonymous rater also disclose whether or not that person is "incompetent" to rate photos? At most it would reveal whether or not they have posted "good" or "bad" (as rated by other incompetents) photos to their photonet webspace. Good photographers do not necessarily make competent raters, nor are bad photographers necessarily incompetent raters.

[ernst_landgrebe]

Anonymous ones are more rater like anonymous letter writers, them stand not for their opinion with their name.

[h._p.]

Okay, it's now time to give Brian a heart attack: I reckon the site's now as close to perfect as it's going to get. I think the interface is first class and I think Brian's got the rating system to work as well as it ever will, given the petty egos of some of the contributers.

 

I especially like the forum interface which seems to me to be a model of clarity and I really appreciate having all the postings on a single page - how I loathe those sites where you have to change pages every ten postings to follow a thread. I've hung out here for seven years or so and I've seen this place steadily improve and expand from Phillip's original model.

 

Everyone has different ideas and visions but I reckon that if you don't like photo.net the way it is, go off and start your own site. I suspect you'll find it's a lot harder than Brian makes it look.

[Michael R Freeman]

Ernst - you didn't answer my question.

 

H.P. - I couldn't agree more. I like the clean, simple forum interface. The KISS principle followed to the letter. Try reading a threaded post on dpreview - one of the worst interfaces I have ever seen.

[ernst_landgrebe]

@ Michael, it's the wrong question.