My view on ratings

[root]

excuse me . . . that's "contribute an answer"

 

Don't want to confuse anyone who might not be able to figured it out.

[jayme]

Carl- What are you talking about? I would never intentionally screw up anything!

 

If you could have not only read but comprehend my statement about "not liking bugs" you would not have made such an ignorant response. Of course I don't judge images solely on what I find appealing or unappealing. Do you have problems with reading comprehension? You must :)

[bennyboy]

Are you two going to cut to the chase and get it on? ;)

[joachim.wabnig]

I have read it repeatedly from site administrators that the purpose of ratings is to sort pictures for the TRP page. If this is so, why show ratings associated with a picture at all? Instead just give a message to the photographer: Congratulations, your picture has been featured in TRP, and keep the ratings only internally.

Maybe then people would concentrate more on comments and not on counting ratings.

[dave_dube]

<I>"Brain has said this in the past until he was blue in the face (and has the data to back it up) but the "conspiracy theorists" just don't want to believe it."</I>

<P> It's all about perception, if posters perceive that they are continually given a 3/3 by the same individuals then, to them it's true (perceived reality). If they could<U> <B>see </B></U>who it was giving them the ratings and discover it wasn't always the same people then I think it would be more acceptable. It would also give them a change to ask that person what in their view led to the rating.<P> I hear echos of someone we all know, "just trust me on this".

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>"If they could see who it was giving them the ratings and discover it wasn't always the same people then I think it would be more acceptable. It would also give them a change to ask that person what in their view led to the rating." -- Dave Dube</i>

<P>

Unfortunately Dave, <b>it didn't work that way</b>. Yes there are (and were) members who would do just that, and genuinely want to learn from others. They may even be in the majority. But there are (and were) also those who (along with their "mates") will/would immediately bomb an entire portfolio with low ratings in retaliation, should you dare give one of their precious photos (and their bloated egos, thanks to "mate-rates") a low rate. To some of them, "low" was a 5 or below. Such individuals were/are in the small minority, but they caused a world of incredible aggravation for the site administrators.<P>

And yes, you can "trust me on this" (and anyone else who was here when ratings were public). It was a mess, and the TRP pages were a joke. I wish it weren't so, <b>but it was</b>.<P>

The rating system isn't perfect, but it's far better than it was. Regrettably some people are just really petty and immature, and those individuals can cause a lot of upset. As with anything, a few always spoil something for the rest of us.<p> Improvements are always possible, but a lot of people seem to want the <u>rating</u> system to be something it was never really intended to be - <u>critique</u> feedback.

[root]

First you wrote:

 

" . . . because we only have A/O to rate from & I personally don't care for bugs, aesthetically, I wouldn't feel like rating this aesthetically high, but it is an interesting capture."

 

then in response to my comment you wrote:

 

"If you could have not only read but comprehend my statement about "not liking bugs" you would not have made such an ignorant response. Of course I don't judge images solely on what I find appealing or unappealing. Do you have problems with reading comprehension? You must :)"

 

Which is it?

 

I'm sure you'll come up with something, accompanied by another insult hurled at me for pointing it out.

 

The issue here is how the rating system in incorrectly interpreted by so many raters, including you. There is a tutorial on this site which makes sense, yet is constantly ignored for a variety of reasons.

 

It is generally agreed that the photographers who receive critical acclaim in the real world would all score poorly on this site. Have you ever wondered why?

[darrell_m]

Carl, what you say is true and I have wondered why. Apart from the obvious, that us PNet crowd are desperately under-educated, what is the reason?

[jayme]

Carl- Here's my response. I truly do not wish to debate with you. You would loose :)Everything is not black & white, occassionally there's some gray :) Thank God!

 

We view Art differently. That's OK. You absolutely do not influence me, obviously I do not influence you. I can & do state my reasons for the way I see & interpret photos. As I stated "I may not "feel" like rating this aesthetically high". The key here Carl is "feel", I did not say I would NOT rate it high.

 

And yes, "feeling" is a part of that 3 dimensional thinking that you may not be capable of understanding. Stop me if I'm wrong, but Art IS about feeling. If you can't feel it, then unfortunately, you can't fully appreciate it.

 

Can one learn to feel Art? I don't know, I think it's just something you have to be born with. All else is pure knowledge, found in a dictionary, encyclopedia, textbook or teachings. While knowledge is important, if you can't then apply it in the creation of something wonderful, what good is it?

 

Emotion, Knowledge & Creativity all parts of 3 dimensional thinking in Art. Of the 3, I think I'd rather lack "knowledge". False knowledge constrains creativity. That's why kids are usually very.... creative. They lack the constraints of false knowledge. They are blank canvases. This explains why some of the least experienced photographers can capture some of the most creative images. They don't know they can't do that :)

 

I have read the tutorial here on PN re: ratings. It's clear as mud :)

 

So wake up Carl & smell the coffee. Just because you think it, does not make it so.

[root]

That doesn't fly, Jayme. You implied that the O/A criteria prevented or discouraged (or whatever words you want to use that made you FEEL like you were somehow hamstrung) you from rating an ugly bug high on aesthetics. You also say the tutorial is as clear as mud. It addresses exactly this issue very clearly. Go back and read it again.

 

You've also made the whole critique/rating process seem very ethereal, intangible, open ended, variable, unknowable. Sure it's about FEELINGS. The trick is to learn to recognize what aspects of the photo's lighting, composition, etc. contribute to the feelings you have about it. There are many who have gone before you who have worked hard to try to quantify this process, not without some success.

 

Love your comments about naive art. Can you show me some examples . . . along with your own thoughtful analysis, please.

[david_arran]

<i>It is generally agreed that the photographers who receive critical acclaim in the real world

would all score poorly on this site. Have you ever wondered why?</i>

<p>

Because most (art/photography/literary*) critics are self-important, self-aggrandizing,

pretentious windbags who are completely out of touch with reality?<p>

*delete as appropriate<p>

Oops, did I say/write that out loud?<p>

 

<i>removes tongue from cheek</i>

[root]

Whose reality? Yours?

[david_arran]

Actually, I was thinking more in terms of Zaphod Beeblebrox. ;-)<p>

Take a trip in the Total Perspective Vortex, it's quite enlightening.<p><p>

<i>The views expressed in this forum post in no way reflect the views of any dolphin, living

or dead.</i><p>

[jayme]

Carl- I don't think I feel anymore "prevented or discouraged or hamstrung" than anyone else when it comes to "rating" or articulating my rating of an image. I often site the same attributes that the "tutorial" (actually a few brief paragraphs meant to be a set of "guidelines or standards") describes. Here are the brief highlights of the basic theory (my thoughtful analysis) I use to rate &/or comment on an image on PN.

 

Aesthetics:

 

Interesting composition, effective balance of light & color, capture of "subject's" personality. "Technical aspects such as lighting, contrast, color, tonal range, focus, sharpness, shutter speed, filter usage, camera position, or lens selection support or undermine the aesthetics of the images. Finally, (I) try not to be too influenced by (my personal) like or dislike of the subject."

 

Originality:

 

When an image "shows me something unexpected or a familiar subject in a new, insightful, striking, humorous, or creative way. Originality can be very subtle."

 

Carl- please feel free to read a broad over view of my comments. These are exactly the type of comments I continuously make reference to when commenting on & rating an image on PN.

 

However, the 3 dimensional thinking I have previously referenced, comes into play when one is required to "read between the lines". Everything is NOT black or white. There are exceptions & additions to all the rules & guidelines. I see & feel them all the time. I feel sure you may not understand this statement because you appear to be such a concrete thinker. "Just the facts ma'am, just the facts" :) But try :)

 

In real life, I certainly have a few more parameters than the basic standards mentioned above that I use to decide if something is successful. PN's instructions are very concise, but obviously not all inclusive. I believe these guidelines or "standards" were meant as just that, "guidelines & standards". They assume that the individual reading them can & will "interpret" them. Of course for you they are not up for interpretation, they are exactly what they are, laws :)

 

As for examples of "naive" art. I could show you an image drawn by our son, while in kindergarten. (He's now 31) When asked to draw the Mona Lisa, he did. By God, he actually captured the essence of the Mona Lisa. I was blown away. I could also direct you to several "rookies" on PN that I think have shown great potential. But....honestly, I wouldn't wish you or your opinions on anyone. Especially anyone who is "new" to photography or art. You are not exactly the most enthusiastic, open minded, encouraging member I am acquainted with. In fact, you are painfully the opposite. Your attributes make you not very conducive to free thinking creativity.

 

So.... may I suggest you continue on your way, without giving much "thought" to anything anyone else, including myself, has suggested. Of course, you are right & everyone else is more than likely, not right. You go by the book and of course the "book" is right! Right? Of course it is, if you read the right book :) LOL You're such a trip!

 

Art is completely interpretive & there are no concrete answers. You may be better suited for drafting :) because your glass is most likely half empty :)

[mack_mann]

"True trouble makers ARE found, their abusive ratings are deleted, as are the accounts".

M.F.

 

Some of the trouble makers in the past were found only after years of abuse, I remember

reading someof the complaints. Only after many people complained for years did they get

removed. Something like one percent of all ratings ever were taken off becauzse of

cheaters.

 

How do you think anybody can complain today, when the names are not even there?

These low-rating

people are probably the very same ones as in the past. Now they can hide. How is that a

good

thing?

[root]

Jayme, you're a hoot. Fortunately, we both have large portfolios on line and a history of critiquing images, so readers are free to judge quality of output for themselves, not to mention the intellectual and emotional states that they reflect.

[dave_dube]

<B>Michael F. - Thanks for your reply, it helps getting a historical perspective.

[jayme]

Carl- Very, very true. Glass half empty, glass half full? No matter which, mine will most definitely have to contain a little Bourbon as we discuss the differences. Fitting though, since I reside in the Bourbon capital of the world :) We residents must do what we must to keep our local economy booming :)

[david_arran]

</b>Personally, I'd rather have a <i>completely</i> full glass of aged single barrel

bourbon, or, even better, single malt scotch. :-)<p>