A few suggestions

[jayme]

A few suggestions:

 

Make no mistake, I am not complaining about any ratings I have

received. I am complaining that the TRP does not seem to represent

the best that PN has to offer on a daily basis. The majority of the

better images posted daily are not on the top 10 pages. The

complaints about the rating system continue to pour in daily on this

forum. Why not try something different?

 

1- Return the 1-7 rating system as it was previously, without staff

review of 1's & 2's.. The "bot" detector is in place, that should

suffice.

 

2-Let the rate recent queue be seen like the TRP, in thumbnails.

 

3-Allow images from the "rate recent" to remain in the queue for at

least 24 hours (more time would be better but it's understood that

space is limited) If they were seen in a thumbnail format then all

would be available instead of the top 10-15 that haven't been rated

yet or just those that have less than 5 or 10 ratings.

 

4-Allow all members to continue anonymous ratings from the thumbnail

queue view for that 24 hours.

 

And as further enhancements in the future:

 

1-Make all images posted for rating & critique anonymous. The name of

the photographer would be unavailable for the first 24 hours. After

24 hours, to save staff time, it would be the responsibility of the

photographer to go back in & "edit image info" and add their name.

 

I am sure there is some way of making this name addition the link to

the photographer's portfolio.

 

You added a "Send eCard" option without any difficulty, can't we fix

this thing called the "rating system"?

[will king]

<i> "2-Let the rate recent queue be seen like the TRP, in thumbnails." </i>

<br>

<br>

 

Jayme, if I understand you correctly, the rate recent queue are the photos that are seen one at a time when you choose to rate anonymously, right? If that's the case, I don't like the idea. I rarely rate photos anymore, almost never anonymously, but when I do rate, I want to be able to open the thumbnail and view it large. The fallacy in doing this is, once you open the thumbnail and rate it, it is no longer anonymous. <br>

<br>

One thing I would like to see improved is more visibility for photos. This may sound hypocritical since I rarely rate anonymously, but it seems as though it's getting tougher to get 5 anonymous rates to qualify for the TRP. Maybe the rating system could be tweaked to give priority to photos that have less than 5 anonymous rates. <br>

<br>

On a side note. I have seen photos from photographers (and they are from the same batch of names) that ALWAYS tend to get 50-75 rates only after 2-3 days after the post their photo. I can see if the photo was #1 on the TRP page but the odd thing is, a lot of times it's not because they're not anonymous rates. How can I get this kind of exposure? Is this phenomenon some kind of rating club or something?

[jayme]

Will- In my suggestions I neglected to add, that in order to rate, the rater would have to click on the thumbnail & actually view the image large. Thanks for straightening that out.

 

There was a time in PN's history when all ratings were anonymous. The names of the raters were listed, but in random order, so you had a hard time figuring out who rated what. It was nice to know who actually rated the image, but added a little anonymity to what the actual rater had rated the image. Of course, some people spent all their time trying to figure out who rated what & this is why, I think, Brian made it totally anonymous :(

 

My point exactly, a lot of members, like yourself, have quit using the rate recent queue. This is why I think the TRP is failing to represent the best of the best PN has to offer.

 

As far as getting lots of ratings, I think that by not allowing the photographer's name on the image for the first 24 hours, this may inadvertently force members to look at not so well known photographers. I realize, some people have a recognizable style, that's OK too, maybe someone else is trying to "copy" their style :) Without a name, your guessing.

 

These are just my thoughts, but like you I am getting weary of going through the ratings queue. For some reason, I rarely see or get to rate any of the images that are seen on the top 10 pages of the TRP. I find this a little defeating. Makes me not want to rate anymore, at least not anonymously via the queue.

 

Just my 2 cents :)

[mg]

As I already explained elsewhere, if the site wants a lot of ratings -and it does need them in order for averages to be somehow significant -, then the rating process must be user-friendly and pleasant. Imo, surprisingly, the rate recent queue is the least user-friendly feature on photo.net. And yet it is what determines which pictures get or don't get featured in the default TRP. Go figure...

 

I'm not surprised to see today a thread saying that it now takes longer to get ratings through this RR queue, and I'd be curious to see statistics.

 

You wrote: "A lot of members, like yourself, have quit using the rate recent queue. This is why I think the TRP is failing to represent the best of the best PN has to offer."

 

I agree. Same here. I stopped rating through this interface because of the interface itself mostly. Also because ratings on this site do not make sense to me, but that's secondary: with a good interface and thumbnails, I'd still make an effort to help the site sortingpictures.

 

But I just find it dead boring to rate mostly weak images one by one through the RR queue. With thumbnails, I could at least pick and go through a couple of pages faster. I guess the point is that Brian wants people to rate ALL pictures in the queue, but that's too much to ask: people are not rating robots, they surf for enjoyment, and of course, they'll enjoy thumbnailed TRPs better than this Rate recent queue.

 

As for your other points, Jayme, I think they all make sense, but the 2nd point - thumbnails in the RR - is the most urgent.

[RobertChura]

I liked Brian's suggestion of removing the skip photo function. I would also like to remove the rate directly ability.

[mg]

As a side-note, I really wonder why 1s and 2s are gone. These ratings meant "very bad" and "bad". Why suppress them ? Does it mean that there are no bad pictures on photo.net ? :-) Utter nonsense. Yet another way to please people's ego and reduce the number of complaints, I guess... But that's not the way. Proof of it is that we now see complaints everywhere about 3/3s. Next will be complaints about 4s, then about 5s. Finally, and despite the fact that BY DEFINITION most pictures on the site should be rated AVERAGE (which Brian reminds us of regularly), we will end up chosing between 6s and 7s only. This is getting ridiculous.

 

Makes a lot more sense to me to force users to rate following a logical bell curve: allow each rater to submit a given number of each rating. Users should treat ratings like money. If you spent all your money already, then you can't shop anymore. Game over. Exemple: Each user has a capital for each day, which includes, say, 5 ratings of "1", 20 ratings of "2", 50 ratings of "3", 100 ratings of "4", 50 ratings of "5", 20 ratings of "6", 5 ratings of "7". End of mate-rating. End of all the rating games.

[david robinson]

I am in complete agreement with Jayme and Mark when they say, "A lot of members, like yourself, have quit using the rate recent queue. This is why I think the TRP is failing to represent the best of the best PN has to offer."

 

You have both put up very good ideas. Unfortunately, I think it is rather clear this site values quantity of ratings over quality and values inflated, artificial image counts over actual view counts. It's a numbers game. This is not about our viewing pleasure.

 

I'd be interested to know who else doesn't bother to rate from the shooting gallery...

[WJT]

Jayme, I agree that the Rate Recent interface does not function efficiently, I wish that I could suggest a better method. But if the object of the Rate Recent queue is to provide a fair and level ground for rating then you <b>can not</b> have it function analogously to the TRP Gallery. A thumbnail view would allow for even greater skipping-over and abusive selection to rate the submitted photographs.<p>

Consider this scenario: I upload a photograph and request a critique. I then email four or five of my cronies. They all look at the Rate Recent Thumbs, find my photograph easier than ever before, and slap 7/7's on it. Presto! Instant TRP Numero Uno...I love this system.<p>

I also agree that we need to have the 1's and 2's count again. This has been mentioned in a

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00F7xg" >previous thread</a>. The problem, of course, is what do you do about the drive-by lowballs. I am being targeted by at least one account that has marked me "interesting". When I post, this same sockpuppet account lowballs me. The one low rating is not going to mean much on my photographs because they usually get a lot of rates. But other members are not in that position. What does one do about that?<p>

Something, however, most assuredly has to be done to fix the Rate Recent interface. Right now, the default TRP contains only 636 photographs compared to the 1700 in the Average view. Clearly, fewer and fewer members are using the Rate Recent interface, the very system that this site depends on. My friends, we are going backwards here. Regards.

[jayme]

Could we not have a thumbnail viewing system & still have the "no skipping" system enforced? I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is just not being able to rate all the images or at least a large majority of the images that should be in the queue, no matter how many ratings they have acquired before I got there. Most times, when I do use the RR queue, I still find myself clicking on the image to find out the details. I love the details. So, why not a thumbnail viewing system?

 

I agree with everything said so far, I just think that the RR queue is not working the way it is presently operating. A change is needed.

 

We are never going to stop the "drive-by" raters, I have a few myself. We are never going to stop the mate raters (however, Brian has instituted a pretty good reciprocity ratings policy & I think it does work).

 

I find it sad that so many members have become apathetic to the RR queue which is the only determination for the TRP. I use to use the RR feature frequently, I find it's just no fun anymore. And as you have mentioned Marc, now everyone is complaining about ratings of 3's. Soon, I fear it will be complaints of 4's or 5's.

 

I don't care who's images get to the top of the TRP, just as long as they are deserving. That's the request. I don't care what the process is, but someone please, do something.

[bdpics]

I've pretty much stopped using the Rate Recent Que. More and more it freezes after rating 3 or 4 images, and it just got to be too much of a hassle to re-enter the cue over and over.

 

2 key changes need to be made to the Rate Recent Que:

 

 

1. Fix the badly-flawed "slideshow" system for the RR que. I understand that thumbnails are not displayed and we are forced to view images one-by-one because a page of thumbnails for the RR que would allow the mate-raters to have a field day. But the current que system is plagued with "freezing" problems brought about by photogs who delete their image while it's still in the system (because they're not happy with the ratings...) and/or hitting the "skip this image" button to move on to an image I'd like to rate. I don't know why the skip button causes freezes, but I think any image submitted to the RR que should NOT be allowed to be deleted by the artist until it's run it's course in the RR que. If they try to delete the image, and notice would appear saying: "We're sorry, but you cannot delete this image at this time as it is currently in the RR que. Please try again later."

 

2. Images in the RR que should NOT show the photographer's name while still in the que.

 

 

There's been lots of positive changes lately--it would be nice to see a few key changes to the RR que too!

 

 

BD

[mg]

I don't see any mate-rating issue about folks emailing each other to get 7s, assuming the change would be smart enough to prevent such things. For example, here are a few possible solutions:

 

1) Brian has already set some rules preventing people from slapping 7s on each other's pictures on regular basis (part of the solution).

 

2) If we are proposed a set of thumbnails in the RR queue, and if we don't want people to skip too many pictures, we can have a rule forcing people to rate, say, at least half of the thumbnails proposed on each page.

 

3) Of course, as a result of suvh a thumbnail page system, some pictures will get more ratings - most likely the more attractive ones - while others will be skipped over times and times again. But then, the pictures not getting enough ratings would just not be featured in the TRP, just as it works now already. This gives more emphasis to the number of ratings a picture get, which is good imo.

 

4) Keep in mind as well that a thumbnail based system would probably attract more raters, so the abuser's ratings will be "cancelled out" by the number of ratings - which isn't the case now, when too few ratings give abusive ratings much more value.

 

5) Side-note: Perhaps the thumbnail view could be a members-only feature, in order to limit the abuse by fake accounts, and in order to incite people to become members as well...? Then we'd have even much less abuse.

 

6) Finally, the ultimate sophistication to prevent mate-rating, whether in the RR queue or elsewhere, is, I believe, the one I mentionned in this thread, my second post: limit the number of 7s one can slap on any picture.

 

With all this, I think we should have a safe AND pleasant new RR rating system, and better pictures should end up in the TRP.

 

Another interesting possibility: why not allow (bell-curve only) ratings per category, with thumbnailed pictures, just presented in the same way as Jayme was suggesting for the RR queue ? I feel people comparing pictures within a same category would be very likely to actually form a true and trustable opinion. Forcing their ratings to fit a bell curve would finally guarantee, that they choose some pictures as average, some as great, etc, not based on the genre anymore, but based on the actual quality of the picture at hand.

[will king]

Whoever solves the ratings issue deserves the Noble Peace Prize.

 

Anonymous photos wouldn't deter mate rates because a mate rater can just email a friend and describe the photo.

 

I totally disagree with getting rid of the skip feature. I make it a personal policy not to rate photos outside of my personal tastes. Although I respect all genres of photography, portraits and landscapes tend to be my favorites. The "Street" category among others is really my cup of tea. So it would not be fair to the street photographer to have me rate his/her photo. Naturally I'm not going to rate a street photo as high as I wold rate a comparable landscape photo. I don't expect others to abide by this policy, but I do. If I do rate anonymously I would prefer to have the option to skip.

 

Having said that just gave me an idea. When going through the rate photos option, before the photos start to appear one at a time, have all the categories listed and have check boxes next to each one and the rater can choose which types of photos appear in the queue to be rated. That check box list can even have a choose all option. If this were the case, I think the skip feature could be eliminated.

 

Who else thinks this is a good idea?

[davidmccracken]

I am not sure I fully understand all of Jayme's suggestions. I wasn't aware you could rate a photograph by just looking at the thumbnail. (Can some kind soul tell me how... not that I will be doing it.)

 

What is clear from this thread is a lot of people are unhappy.

 

For what it is worth, ratings do mean nothing but this IS a ratings based site. For that reason, I do rate every picture I comment on. I never used to chosing only to leave comments. However, because I leave a comment, my rating is not anonymous and doesn't count for anything.

 

I tend to agree with Marc. Restoring the 1 & 2 make sense. However, it is clear that people do want comments when they receive low ratings. I think ratings of 3, 4 and 5 should be allowed without comment. Ratings of 2 and 6 should require an input of a minimum amount of words. (Say 10) Ratings of 1 and 7 should require a larger minimum. Having said all that, I realise this would deter those who are not native English speakers from giving ratings they feel appropriate.

[mspanakis]

I have never rated anonymously and I will not do it until I am satisfied that the system is sensible and fair. Rating is like voting and a voter needs to go through all the propositions before selecting. Hayme and Marc are wise. Moreover, the photographs (in this case) which are in contest must be comparable; therefore, thumbnails should be juxtaposed by category. I wouldn't mind to have only limited votes to distribute (this is the rule in democratic systems). I wouldn't mind to have even only one of each note to distribute by category. Simple and efficent. Otherwise I will tend to give my preference to my favorite category and most popular categories will continue to have most of the ratings. Alternatively, I would prefer to only be able to give two notes: 'I like it' or 'I do not like it' (no click when I am indiferent)

[mspanakis]

Sorry for misspelling your name in my previous comment. Also, I remember those old good days of semi-anonymous rating, when Golarka was around. Maybe he/she/it stil is but the name is not visible anymore.

[leorossi]

"Let the rate recent queue be seen like the TRP, in thumbnails."

 

Yes!

 

"Make all images posted for rating & critique anonymous. The name of the photographer would be unavailable for the first 24 hours."

 

I agree. This has been suggested a few times.

[alexguerra]

"The majority of the better images posted daily are not on the top 10 pages."

 

Jayme I agree with that, but I really don't think that the only reason why that happens is because the system doesnt work. It does have its problems, but the root of the thing may be precisely on what do people classify as better images. The definition of a very good photo varies immensely from one person to another, so there will always be people who think that the images displayed on the TRP as the best ones are not the best in fact. On the top pages of the TRP I see lots of oversaturated landscapes, oversharpened portraits where you can see the detail of each individual skin pore, slow shutter speed water masses with shiny rocks on the foreground... now, if I assume that most people do like to see this kind of categories and styles, then the TRP top pages are in fact reflecting well the tastes of the masses.

 

Another thing is the great amount of importance given to the TRP, which constitutes the reason why people care to spend so much time writing here endless threads about ratings. I don't see the TRP as the best way to find images I like and from which I can learn things. In fact, believe it or not, I only discovered this feature after reading people speaking about it here in this forum some 9 months after joining photo.net! What I used to do and still continue on doing, is to browse a lot in the critique forum, clicking in names of people that commented before on photos that I am commenting, in short surfing with no defined direction. I find that far more interesting than looking at the boring stereotyped photos of the TRP pages, which I honestly seldom open.

 

Having the above said, what I'm writing here in short is: do we really need to focus all that much on the TRP? I can only speak for my self, but I can say that I have great fun on photo.net and have learned a LOT during one and a half year here being barely aware of the TRP existence.

[jayme]

I agree Alexandre, this is usually what I do. Rarely, do I look at the TRP any more, it is not that exciting. Now that Brian has put the drop down menu so you can look at specific categories, I do this a lot. But... the whole point is to see the best of the best. It's just not happening. And this is my point. Brian's changed things before & he could & probably will change them again, when he feels like it. Obviously he's fine with the way things are, so I will hold my tongue : )