david_arran Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Threes don't bother me that much, especially if they're mixed in with other ratings, which is quite usual. To me, if I get fours right now I'm pretty happy, because to be considered average in such august company is pretty good for a beginner. We mustn't forget though, that after all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If a photo gets rated consistently at or below three (below average), then I'd feel that perhaps there's something I could improve, but without constructive criticism it's very difficult to know what. That's why I'll always value written critiques over anonymous ratings. The only downside is that high ratings beget high viewing figures, which beget comments. So for someone who is "learning the craft", it might be difficult to get critiqued until they have been around a while and perhaps made themselves known to more established members of the community by commenting on others' work first. That's not such a bad thing in my opinion. It makes us serve an apprenticeship of sorts. For those who do require instant gratification, perhaps the site owner might consider scrapping the rating system entirely, and formulate a method of displaying newly uploaded photos in some other order. One idea might be reverse order by number of total views for the photographer, so that newer members get higher in the list and therefore have more chance to get their work critiqued earlier, and therefore get the ideas they need to learn and improve. Of course, there's no perfect solution, and there'll always be people who are unhappy with the system. It's like life, you have to learn to live with it. So until we manage to build Utopia, I'll make the best of waht's available to me. And in my opinion, what's available to me at this site are people with a wealth of talent and experience, some of whom will (hopefully), be willing to pass some small nuggets of wisdom to me during our mutual journey of discovery and creativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 David, you sound very wise. I do think the "system" is a good one. For the most part, people on here are great. I didn't post my initial concern in regards to the system ro anonymous ratings. I posted because, at that particular time, SEVERAL photos were hit with a 3/3. This was beyond coincidence. Again, I like the system but at that time, someone was abusing the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesBecker-Toronto Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I agree that some photographs deserve a 3 or even a 1 or 2 but, to my eye at least, most of them do not. Among the comments made here are "it's just a shame that people can't observe the honour system" and " without constructive criticism it's very difficult to know what ( I could improve)". I agree 100% . This site isn't really about rates, it's about sharing and learning; it would appear there are some people out there for whom this site is about an opportunity to anonymously bring others down. I love this site, I see truly creative minds and wonderful photographs and I want my pictures to be compared to them. I can do without anonymous 3/3's-they contribute absolutely nothing. If someone really thinks a picture isn't any good, let them say so and why. If they don't want to identify themselves, then perhaps the ones that are obviously malicious ( I know, I know, obvious to who?) should be removed. cb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 <i><blockquote> I wanted to bring awareness to this issue </blockquote> </i><p> You must be new here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 Compared to you, yes. Been a member for about 6 or 7 months. I'm sure this kind of stuff goes on more than I know. I'm sure Brian and other moderators are fed up with hearing about ratings. I just never saw something this obvious and blatant. Kaushik Chatterjee listed what looks to be more than 100 photos in one hour that got hit by the 3/3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeaster Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Damn, they got me too. And I thought that it was someone's genuine opinion that my stuff really sucks. (OK, it really DOES suck, but that is beside the point.)Then I noticed that almost all recent black and white photos had the 3/3. (OK, some spoiled kid who hates anything that isn't his or her idea of cool.) Then I noticed that almost all recent photos of any genre had the ignoble stain of a 3/3 rating. A nihilistic spoiled punk who gets his or her rocks off by trashing everything in sight. This is the equivilent of carrying a can of Krylon spray paint into a gallery to graffitti/deface whatever can be reached. In an time like this when otherwise normal kids are raised in a popular culture that holds up pimps as role-models and to be a thug is something to aspire to... what else can we expect? I do not know if there is much of anything that we can do about it. We cannot advocate just doing away with the whole rating system entirely. I know that most of my work isn't what most people (even here) would find particularly pictorial or camera worthy. With the rather limited appeal of my work, I cannot expect to compete in any photo-popularity contest; and isn't that what the annonymous ratings really are? So my only solution is for all of us to get busy rating. Get in there and hit those buttons. Be real about it, be honest about how you feel. Just make sure that if you are going to tear something apart, then try to do so openly and not hide behing the annonymity. But then I am preaching to the chorus, aren't I? OK, I'll come down from my soap-box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesBecker-Toronto Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 An Observation: in spite of differing opinions, this discussion has been carried on in an intelligent manner-even with disagreements, we each know how the others feel and why. But then again, we are all identified and perhaps there's the heart of the matter! Sorry-just couldn't resist. :o) cb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 <i>This is the equivilent of carrying a can of Krylon spray paint into a gallery to graffitti/deface whatever can be reached.</i><P> Actually, it's more like someone going into a gallery, walking along, and stating, "Below average! Below average! Below average! Below average! Below average! Below average! Below average! . . ." (Assuming that it really is just one person and not a variety of people.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 <i><blockquote> I'm sure Brian and other moderators are fed up with hearing about ratings. I just </blockquote> </i><p> Don't care? <p> There are tens of thousands of words archived on this forum about ratings -- which you've apparently decided to ignore or chosen to add to. There are systems and processes in place to deal with egregious violations -- which you've chosen to ignore, while curiously deputizing yourself as netcop on behalf of others. <p> And there are -- always, always -- people who just want to vent.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 Only if that person is hidden behind a mask, and I do think it was just one person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 I'm not <i> deputizing </i> myself as a netcop. I have chosen to express my thoughts in this forum just as you have. I'm not demading a badge. You do not have any photos posted, which is fine by me, so you do not have a vested interest in ratings. On the other hand, for people who do have photos posted and want to see honest ratings and comments, I think this topic is worthy to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 Besides, if you <i> "just don't care" </i> why are you wasting your time responding to this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeaster Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Hey, I liked my Krylon metaphore and I'm sticking with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgarity Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 "This site isn't really about rates, it's about sharing and learning;" From the number of posts in the feedback forum about ratings, I have trouble believing that. I'm convinced ratings are the biggest draw for the site. I think its also true that most members come to the conclusion that the rating system is meaningless. An opinion rendered by an anonymous source means nothing. For example a while back when I showed some Ansel Adams prints to a kid I worked with. He told me they were lousy photos because they were in black and white. If they weren't in color they were garbage in his mind. This idiot thought the work of one of the greatest photographers who ever lived was bad. Now I ask you, would you give a tinkers damn what this clown thought of your photos? I wouldn't. For all any of us know he or someone just like him is the one giving you your 3/3. If you know your work is good, what others think is irrelevant. All that said, I don't like low ratings any more than anyone else does. But its been debated to death and I know for sure that I don't have any answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louis1 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 ...especially if 2/2 and 1/1 are no longer counted. The only point in giving everyone 3/3 is to every so often not give a 3/3 but a higher rating and because the TRP is normally based on 4 5 or 6 rates then this will give the image you rate highly a massive boost. Simple really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 <i>Hey, I liked my Krylon metaphore and I'm sticking with it.</i><P> Mine was more accurate, but yours certainly gets points for being more colorful and for leading so nicely into the rant about the decline of civilization . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeaster Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Mike, I work next door to the Department of Homeland Security in Washington DC. Any day now Osama is going to plant a thermo-nuclear device in the parking garage and I won't get to rant about the decline of Western Civilization any more. Have a heart dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 "This idiot thought the work of one of the greatest photographers who ever lived was bad." His view is worth precisely the same as anyone else's. It seems to me that people who use the word 'idiot' about someone who disagrees with them are setting themselves up to be called 'idiot' as well. I write as one who has made this same mistake all too often. Which brings me back to the ratings. Perhaps the solution is to only let the author of the picture rate it. Then the argument would be about how too many people rate their pictures 7/7, which would, at least, be a refreshing change....<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesBecker-Toronto Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Hey Andre-after the bomb goes off, we get to rate the event; there will be 1's, 2's, and 3's 'over here' and lots of 7's 'over there'! The debate rages on. :o) cb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennyboy Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 It will all come out in the wash - so to speak. I'm sure that Brian has some clever database queries he runs that automagically pinpoint bogus raters, the reason I'm sure is that periodically (as stated above) some ratings disapear. What is an issue is that these bogus rates probably get removed after an image has received its 5 rates/TRP timeframe qualification, so that 1 blackball denies some great photos an opportunity to be seen by more people. Ah well. On the subject of ratings, I personally try to rate stinkers as stinkers and average photos as average, most photos are 3's or 4's, the rest are exceptions, by skipping photos we dont like we do ourselves a disservice because we contribute to a devaluation of the higher ratings - at least that's what I'd like to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 <i><blockquote> if you "just don't care" why are you wasting your time responding to this thread? </blockquote> </i><p> No, I was finishing your sentence for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 <i><blockquote> I think this topic is worthy to discuss. </blockquote> </i><p> Ad nauseum, apparently. <p> Netcopping involves speaking for someone else, Will -- which is precisely what you are doing here, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 Well, yes I guess you can say I am. It wasn't my photo(s) in question, but my motives were not to defend a photo or a member, it was to bring to light an issue of abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlesBecker-Toronto Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 while this discussion has been taking place, my number of ratings has gone down, my averages went up, and the number of most frequently rated photos went down for the 2nd time in about 2 weeks; any one else? cb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 I just checked Tim Holte's photo that I initially noticed this pattern this morning and the 3/3 rating was deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now