I need to understand something about Critique Only.

[root]

As with your last half dozen or so attempts to engage me in these forums, you've totally misunderstood the issue and gone off in some irrelevant direction.

 

To vote is to pick one (or more). It never involves grading or degrading as it does here.

 

I'm still waiting for a real world example to support your concept of the tabulation of votes (not the thought process behind it, or lack thereof.)

[mottershead]

I don't think the aim of photo.net is to "teach people what is good photography", as if the principles of good photography were carved in tablets, to be revealed on this site.

 

Rather, I would say the aims are:

 

(1) to help people understand what others admire, and are drawn to, in photographs. If the Top Rated Photos pages show anything, it is that there is an enormous range of genres, styles, subjects, techniques, and approaches to photography that are appreciated (or not) by different people and groups.

 

(2) help and inspire them to make the types of photographs that they want to make -- photos that will have value to the photographer and othes. We do this mainly by getting photographers to share technical information, by presenting numerous examples, and by motivating people to look at photographs closely.

 

The editor of a site like photo.net doesn't need to be an aesthetic absolutist or elitist. On the contrary, it seems to me that an aesthetic relativist like me is the perfect person to be running a site like photo.net, even if I do say so myself. As you say, it would be bizarre if an aesthetic absolutist thought a reasonable way to create an exhibition of photos was to let the Internet public vote.

 

By the way, your attempt to link moral relativism to aesthetic relativism misses the mark. There is no logical necessity for an aesthetic relativist to be a moral relativist.

[mottershead]

Carl, you might want to read the articles on "Voting" and "Range Voting" on the Wikipedia before you continue this line of argument.

[root]

"There is no priveleged position in the aesthetic universe, no center -- no canonical population to whose aesthetic judgements every other aesthetic judgement must yield."

 

It's called the human visual system. It doesn't define the beginning and end of the discussion, but it's an integral part.

 

"That means that there is no basis for saying that the aesthetic judgements of the man in the street are wrong, or that, for example, "expert photographers" are right. There are only groups that you wish to impress, and those you don't."

 

You can impress someone with a poor picture only in the absence of a similar one that is better according to well known standards. . . at least well known to people who have recognized that there is such a thing and have chosen to educate themselves.

 

"I suppose there could be some aesthetic universals. There might be a picture that would constitute a test of humanity -- a kind of Turing picture. The universal 7/7 photo. If you don't like it, you must be a monster, or a mutant, or lying, or maybe an artificial intelligence. If so, I'd like somebody to tell me what these aesthetic universals are -- what properties the universal 7/7 photo must have. And I'd like to know where those universals come from. I personally don't think there are aesthetic universals, or that the universal 7/7 photo can exist. But if it can, it isn't a distorted-looking picture of reflective balls."

 

You're off on an irrelevant tangent about the perfect single picture in an attempt to discredit my image. Given our varied states of consciousness, it's actually hard to imagine a better metaphor than my upload, given its theme of distorted perception and reflected reality . . . but that assumes that raters are accustomed to looking at RFC images metaphorically.

 

"Now, what does all that have to do with Critique Only?"

 

The issue is always about why people do or do not embrace the rating system, rather than asking for alternative venues for discussing images. Buying off new sign ups to the site in order to keep the system afloat does not inspire confidence. Neither does your newfound philosophy that attempts to legitimize their input.

[root]

Interesting read on range voting . . .

 

Curious that the examples used to illustrate it were intentionally silly and that the only real world example you can find if you dig deeper are 13th century Venice, 19th century England, and electing the UN secretary general. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

 

I've always said that the photo.net ratings system would be an interesting subject for independant analysis. Maybe others who are studying it can learn from our experience.

[lightwait]

Carl, I don't know what attempts you have in mind, but I am not trying to engage you, per se, I'm trying to help you.

 

But anyway, since we are both here, let's deal with the here and now . . . instead of ghosts.

 

My last post was titled "correction" because it was a correction of a mistaken notion on your part. You tried to say what a vote was, but what you were describing was a mindless pick. To mindlessly pick something is not the meaning of vote.

 

You say "To vote is to pick one (or more). It never involves grading or degrading as it does here," but you can only say this honestly if you insist on ignoring the part of the process where a voter employs his or her criteria which provides the BASIS for picking.

 

Note too how your language changes: originally your terms were "...no evaluative process, like judging," this time around, you change it to "[voting] never involves grading or degrading as it does here." Regardless, what you say is only true if one ignores the evaluative measures a decision employs.

 

You are simply in no position to state accurately the criteria others bring to bear when they pick, choose, select, discriminate, or vote. Just because you have no leg to stand on is no reason to cut the legs of another's decision or choice or evaluation.

 

>>I'm still waiting for a real world example to support your concept of the tabulation of votes (not the thought process behind it, or lack thereof.)<<

 

The concept is rather simple, Carl, in order to make a selection one brings to bear some basis in terms of which that selection is made, otherwise, one does not select, pick, chose, vote, etc.

 

As far as you waiting for a real world example of my concept of 'the tabulation of votes,' I hope you have the good sense to come in out of the rain now and then.

[louis1]

Is it fair to say that as someone takes and/or views more photographs they will change

their perception of images ie what pleases or displeases them.

 

Photonet is probably stuck in the early stages of perception. I guess because I have no

statistics that the majority of the rating is done by those in the early stages of their 'image'

education. Their likes/dislikes have yet to move forward. They will mostly come and go

within an average and probably predictable amount of time, leaving behind the longer

term site members.

 

The 'early stagers' rates are totally valid and honest rates.

 

However those who have moved forward (some may never move from their early

preferences) are uncomfortable with the ratings given by the early stagers. The ratio of

comments to rates is not close enough to ease this discomfort.

 

So we have a scenario which it is hard to see ever changing. The Top rated images will

therefore always be those selected by the majority who are mostly not long term site

members and who are most likely to people still at the 'early stage' of their appreciation of

photography.

 

The current site design will help the 'early stagers' but should they wish to move forward

and seek out other images as their likes/dislikes develope they will find no help from the

design of the site because it is geared to promote the popular choice of those still at the

'early stages'.

 

I do not suggest that was the original plan but it is the plan now.

 

I don't know how many images go up for critique only but is it not a minuscule % of the

total images posted.

 

I am not suggesting that some sort of elitist agenda should rule photonet.

 

Those who enjoy music, art, literature or sport overtime become more discerning in what

we want from our interests. In music it could move from ballads to jazz or opera or

classical music. We then go to different venues and listen to different composers/

musicians. At photonet there is a discrimination or at best a lack of encouragement to

recognise that tastes develope.

[root]

"Every public definition of vote I have found implies evaluation no matter how impoverished the criteria."

 

Well yes . . .

 

But you only get to express it as a single "yes" or "no", and your vote is usually tabulated as winner take all, 13th century Venice notwithstanding.

 

I'm sorry that my use of the word "evaluation" confused you. I'll try to be clearer next time.

[jeremy freeland]

Louis -

 

"a lack of encouragement to recognise that tastes develop"

 

I think that's well put, without being elitist or argumentative, and gets to the root of a problem that I've found hard to articulate.

 

The attraction of the CO forum is that it provides a means for members who are creating images that aren't in the style of those that get high rates on the TRP to get meaningful critique. I don't want to beat that one to death again, but over-emphasis on the ratings is leading to a limited uniformity in what gets posted there ... and if you don't buy into that uniformity, then you're left frustrated. It would be an interesting challenge, Brian - to find a way to encourage 'later-stage developers.'

[mottershead]

Carl, of course the other examples Wikipedia gives of "range voting" are scoring in some Olympic events, and Web rating sites for movies (IMDB), etc. They don't mention photo.net or "Am I Hot or Not", but those are also clear examples of range voting.

 

As I said earlier, there are many different voting systems. Most of them are entirely theoretical and have never been used in an actual election of public officials, or indeed anywhere. There is a lot of theoretical work on voting systems. One of the most interesting results is the Arrow Paradox. Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, showed mathematically that is it impossible to satisfy five basic "fairness" constraints on voting systems. At first sight, the constraints seem obvious and trivial. Things like "non-dictatorship": there should not be one special voter who determines the outcome. But it is impossible to devise a voting system to satisfy them all.

[lightwait]

You wrote: "I'm sorry that my use of the word "evaluation" confused you."

 

Your use of 'evaluation' did not confuse me and there is no indication in anything I posted to suggest that it did.

 

So Carl . . ugh, like, what are you talking about?

 

-T

[lightwait]

From an old Art and Religion course:

 

"Nothing can be known without there being an appropriate "instrument" in the makeup of the knower. This is the Great Truth of "adaequatio" (adequateness), which defines knowledge as adaequatio rei et intellectus - the understanding of the knower must be adequate to the thing to be known."

 

E.F. Schumacher

[glenn traver]

WOW-another Bad vote.......

[glenn traver]

bird hater, its a bird hater Carl, http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=4462910

[cjfraser]

Brian, you distort and misunderstand my remarks and tag them with labels ('absolutist', 'elitist') I didn't use or endorse.

 

I suggested that aesthetic judgments can have an objective basis. That is not absolutism or elitism. (It is probably a complex form of realism, but I don't want to go into that here.)

 

Among the many educational articles posted on PN are a few on composition. It is a natural inference that one aim of the site is to help people learn to take aesthetically better photographs. Not just more popular photos, but better ones.

 

Your comment about the role of voting seems to sum up well your position on the role of the ratings system, I agree. And I find it, as I said, pretty disappointing.

 

~"your attempt to link moral relativism to aesthetic relativism misses the mark. There is no logical necessity for an aesthetic relativist to be a moral relativist."~

 

Please reread what I wrote. I was not making the strange and obviously false claim that an aesthetic relativist is logically necessarily a moral relativist. I was giving an illustrative analogy to explain the difference between normative and psychological claims. Normatively, it's possible that objective standards exist even when psychologically an entire sample population ignores them.

 

That point rebuts the grounds you gave for aesthetic relativism. There may be other arguments for it, but you didn't give them.

[guyscrivner]

A logical man should never argue with a fool in public. It is hard for bystanders to to tell which one is which.

[jeremy freeland]

Let's put an end to all of this by reinstating the Critique Only forum to its prior prominence - on condition that all those who participate must first swear (or at least, click-through) an oath: that they will never ever, ever, ever criticise the rating system (again). Never. Not even once. Not even in 5 years time. Not even if the TRP looks like a Hallmark portfolio. Let there only be peace.

[bennyboy]

If?

[jasonwilliamsphotography]

Can't we all get along, just consider the source of the rating and move on, it is not like you win a million dollars for the top photo of the day....year or whatever. Aren't we all here to learn something? I try to look at everyones portfolio who rates or comments on one of my photos, the better their photos the more I listen.

 

I think comments are worth way more than numbers, all I see the numbers do for me is bring more people to my photo who might comment.

 

It is nice if people leave comments if they are going to leave a below average number so you know what people don't like about it but not required. I welcome that feedback, I have learned a ton from people on here from constructive critism and people leaving reworks of my photos with instructions.

 

As stated earlier by others, I also look at the number of ratings as that also is a good indicator if you hit the mark with a photo or not. IF someone takes the time to comment you must have sparked something, good or bad.

 

Bottom line, everyone has different taste, everyone uses the scale differently, I think most tend to rate generously as they don't want to cause waves. (myself included)

 

Have fun, stop arguing, taking pictures is way more fun!

[yann_r.]

Walter,<p>

I'm going to be open-minded and the fairest possible.<br>

Comparing some of mine with others I think that, now, my photos can be submitted for ratings.<p>

Cheers.