It is possible to rate anonymous after such a long time?

[rosan]

I?m not very happy with the anonymous ratings system.

It have never happened that some one how rate me down explain way

with a comment.

On the other hand its commend that after 5 or 6 hours

Or some times after a day or so I have had anonymous ratings.

My question is, how it is possible to rate anonymous after such a

long time?

Where do they find my picture accessible for anonymous ratings .

Is the driving force so hard to chicken rate that this people take

all the time just for hurting.

Is that the case I?m think it?s time to stop the anonymous ratings.

[mottershead]

Which image are you referring to that received an anonymous rating a long time after having been submitted for critique?

[rosan]

For example may last one

id=3789175

For 5 and 6 hours two anonymous ratings come up.

[bens]

i agree, comments are best.

so how come you don't? you've left many ratings of 4 or less without commenting.

 

what goes around comes around.

 

you want comments?

 

leave comments.

[mottershead]

I don't see any ratings coming in a long time after you posted that image for critique. You posted it on the Oct 9, and it got 2 anonymous "rate recent" ratings through the Photocritique Queue on Oct 9, along with 8 ratings directly on the photo. This is exactly how it is supposed to work. It took about five hours for your photo to work its way to the front of the photocritique queue and be presented to people in that user interface. Does that seem surprisingly long to you?

 

By the way, it seems that the two anonymous ratings were 4/4 ratings, while those directly on the photo were 6 and 7 ratings. Personally, I'd give this photo a 5, or in a very generous mood, maybe a 6. So, the 4/4 ratings don't look so far off to me, certainly closer to my opinion than the 7 ratings. As far as comments go, there are only 2 comments on the photo, so most of the people rating it high didn't comment either. I notice you didn't complain about the lack of comments explaining the high ratings.

[rosan]

My questions is:

Is it possible to rate anonymous after a long time? For how long time are picture accessible for anonymous ratings?

[mottershead]

Well in this case, the later of the two anonymous ratings came in five hours after you submitted the photo. You talk as if the rating came in days after you had submitted it. But five hours isn't long at all.

 

The photos are in the Rate Recent queue for 60 days, sorted more or less by the number of ratings they have, photos with the fewest ratings first. Generally a photo with more than 10 to 15 ratings is too far down the list to be presented to a "Rate Recent" rater, unless someone happens to work his way very far through the list. But there are some people who rate a lot of photos in one session, so it isn't impossible for a photo to get anonymous ratings a couple of days after being submitted.

 

How long it takes for a photo to get 10 to 15 ratings depends on the photo and on how often people skip by it rather than rating it. But the fact that a photo only had 9 ratings after 5 hours, and was therefore still near the front of the list, is not unusual at all.

[bens]

oh be honest roger. what does it matter when the rating is given? i suspect that if you really thought about it, you would acknowledge that you just don't like getting 4s without comments.

 

leave comments, get comments.

 

we all think our work is special.

[rosan]

Thanks, i?m pleased with Brians answer.

I have no intention to discuss that particularly pitc.

It was more curious about how the system working

We leave the discussion.

Regards Roger

[bens]

oh please . . . here's your words before i commented:

 

"Is the driving force so hard to chicken rate that this people take all the time just for hurting. Is that the case I?m think it?s time to stop the anonymous ratings."

 

That's alot more than curiosity. and now i see you will not stand behind your own words.

 

who is chicken, roger?

[bens]

btw, i have no intention of discussing your particular pic either, roger. i am pointing out, since you commented about "chicken rate" after talking about people rating anonymously without commenting, that you have rated often without commenting.

 

you want a change? instead of demanding the sytem change, change your behavior.

 

as I said, we all think our work is special, roger.

 

i've got less interest commenting on the work of anyone who does not comment much themselves (and you rate far more than you coment), no matter what rating i give. which for the moment means you probably won't be hearing from me, whatever rating i give a work of yours that you post for critique.

 

the idea that you would complain about others doing something you don't practice yourself . . . well roger, that's what gets me going here.

[jimknowles]

how in the heck is a 7 further away from a 4 than a 6?

duh?

maybe you shouild just LABEL 7's as the DEATH NUMBER or EVIL NUMBER?

Or make all 7's 10's?

If a picture deserves to be labeled equal to the best and highest rated images on the entire

site, then it deseves a 7.

But here -it seems if someone gives a 7 it is immediately suspect!

Stupid.

[jimknowles]

Oh, excuse me.

That should read:

How is a 7 further Away from a 5 than is a 4 from a 6?

BM:

Personally, I'd give this photo a 5, or in a very generous mood, maybe a 6. So, the 4/4

ratings don't look so far off to me, certainly closer to my opinion than the 7 ratings.

[afs760bf]

Is this turning into a math class?

[klimax]

<i>how in the heck is a 7 further away from a 4 than a 6?</i>

 

These ratings are ordinal scale, which by definition means they are invariant only under monotonic transformations. Subtraction is inappropriate in this scale of data.

 

OK. Are we now completely off topic?

[h._p.]

Oh lord, more math claptrap. How *can* you believe in a system which describes division by zero as undefined?

[logicbit]

In response to your comment, I do agree. However, I think that only those that have

photos posted should be allowed to rate photos. You see, everyone ask for an opinion but

few would like to know what others actually feel. Many are vindictive and rate photos very

low in retaliation for what was an honest opinion. Actually all photos must be categorized

that way the individual doing the rating is viewing the same type of photography. You see

if you view a wonderful landscape and then view a photojournalism photo each must be

judged independently since each has its own merits within the context of what is being

captured. I have reviewed some of those who tend to give some really great photos low

marks. It always seems to be someone with no portfolio of their own or who only rates

nudes high.

 

Personally I'm only interested in hearing comments from photographers not everyone with

a digital camera. Its not fair because although I respect everyones opinion only those that

take photography seriously will give me the feedback that will make me a better shooter.

Isn't that what we all strive for?

 

Second, I think digital photos and those altered should be in a separate category (except

for those processes that would normally be done when processing a print, sharpness,

contrast, crops, and burning). Not because one is better than the other but digital artist

are a separate group from photographers. This isn't bias, I actually was published in 1999

and have created digital art for Blue Sky Studios, DC comics, Caligari, blah, blah ,blah but

my photography and my digital art are distinct. A painting and a photograph of the same

subject, composition, light etc. are distinct and are judged separately as they should.

 

Third I think that you cant really rate a photo by esthetics and originality. Frankly,

originality is way to broad. Original in what way. Many photographers shoot similar

composition and subject matter therefore you cant rate originality. Originality in context is

studio or setup shots because technically capturing the moment is what it is. A single

moment. The light, subject are out of our control. We only have composition, exposure,

and timing at our will unless we are shooting with the assistance of artificial light.

Therefore rating originality is moot. Instead I would propose photos are rated as follows

by exposure, subject lighting, composition, light and shadow, and finally ask the user to

choose what emotion the photo gave them when viewed.

 

Of course this only my two 1/2 cents.

 

-frank a. rivera