MAKE PHOTO'S TO BE RATED ANONYMOUS

[wade_rose]

BOB , thats why i am saying you need these people to join i have 6 email address so if i wasnt a member icould use a fack name on each non- member account and then who would know? and how many people are already doing this? just me thinking again....:D i like this site alot and i am learning. and hoping to learn more from it. and i see people intrests or we all would not be here now so make them pay.:D

[glenn traver]

Seven-sometimes you have to repeat something over and over ,before someone standing next to you says , you know thats not a bad idea.I know its been brought up ,but I think its worth bringing back up.

[wade_rose]

I agree wit you glenn

[alexis_neel]

So 7's the lucky number for this type of question to be brought up again? After that it won't need to be brought up again?

 

Cool. I think we only have 2 more time left...WOOHOO!

[pawel_czapiewski1]

There are many supporters of this idea Glenn perhaps not enough to motivate the site administration to act on it. I think that allowing optional anonymity for 3 days and disallowing direct rating for that period plus making rating through category count towards the sort would solve some of the problems. Regards

[glenn traver]

Pawel, thats very positive

[mg]

Glenn traver's idea is GREAT. for those who do not realize how great it is, Walter for example, please do note that Glenn said: it could be "available as an option" to the posting photographer !

 

Which means that those who are not interested, Walter for example, or all those who want to have a (useless) copyright statement on their jpegs could just do so !

 

For info, the main reason I stopped posting pictures here is that they hardly received any useful feedback anymore in terms of comments (with some exceptions of course), and because I already knew each time what the ratings would be like.

 

The ratings would always range from the lowest to the highest on the scale and the pictures would end up so deep in the TRP with an average of 5 to 5.6, and "voilà". All useless for me, since most ratings would be anonymous and not have any comment attached.

 

I know for sure - just trust me on that one, I've been around long enough -, that some ratings were exagerately high because of some preconceived ideas some people had that what ever I do must be at least "very good", and I know for sure, that some ratings were exagerately low, because I've always said what I truly thought an image was worth - which landed me loads of ennemies.

 

So, posting pictures with my name on them became useless, because they would quickly be invisible and wouldn't receive more than, say, 30% or so of really unbiased ratings.

 

Now if I could post without my name on my photos, and if I'm careful enough to upload only few pictures - and never two pictures of the same subject matter -, perhaps I'd get really honest ratings in the future - and perhaps a few more comments if a picture fares well enough.

 

Which is exactly what Glenn is offering me. Now if Glenn's suggestion is applied, I'd be really interested in restarting to post photos, and see what difference it makes.

 

By the way, the name of posting photographer could then be revealed a month later or so.

 

Since Glenn's proposing this as AN OPTION to photographers when posting their work, what could possibly be wrong about this ?

[john falkenstine]

After reading this string of postings, I went and checked the statistics of what were once (and still are) notorious mate raters and manipulators of the photo.net system.(How else can you get an endless string of "anonymous" 6's and SEVENTY THOUSAND VIEWS of your image in the same time period that most of us average less than 300?) (This fellow must have entire internet CITIES assigned to his pictures) After looking at the statistics under the images it appears that the current system of anonymous raters has already been "broken" by at least this party, meaning that that other weaklings will, and are ready to engage in the same practice. The only reason that he isn't dominating all of the ratings is because Brian's filtering system is knocking him out like it is supposed to do. Obviously this blows Glenn's suggestion, because the system can AND IS being played with. Overall, the quality of the images is more or less anonymous anyway when the repetitiveness of the images is taken into consideration with some exceptions. The real hidden hope as I see it set forth here is that some are hoping that THEIR images will suddenly get more visibility or popularity with this change in the system i.e. the current system is preventing THEIR images from being as visible or as popular as the ones they are seeing..I don't think that is the case...To get more critique going and more interest going, the pictures themselves will need to be more interesting first. I believe I once recommend anonymous posting of images as well but I recognize it now as not being effective.