davidmccracken Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 <b><a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/4566135>This image</b></a> was posted on P.N for over 1 hour before receiving a 3/3. Is this a record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsc1 Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 no its not i have several photos with no 3/3. the critics giving 3/3 are just normal individual it just happen they don't like the photo. every people have different opinion. regards DSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Hmmmm...Perhaps the 3/3 culprit has been revealed! Or..perhaps you just hit an unusually slow time for ratings generally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrell_m Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Sorry David. Late night last night so I had a lie in. Won't let it happen again. Seriously though-have a <b><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3861170">look at this one</a></b>. It got the two finger rating twice , i think because some folk thought the crop was poor photography. Yours is even more extreme so no suprise to see 3/3 there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neild Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 FWIW David, I would rate it 6/3 - 6 for orig., 3 for aesth. Am I being too harsh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenandrews Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Who is this 3/3 troll? Is it the same person? I get the rating on every one of my photos, without fail, and within minutes of posting. (Some of them may deserve the "below average" rating, but all of them?) He must have a lot of time on his hands, and seems to hate photography. Don't know why he's on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrell_m Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Ken, i don't think he's working alone. We could all out a 3/3 guy once a week, although I don't think BM would approve. http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=48132 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot_rosen1 Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 It never fails. People put out photographs to be rated and then complain here about the ratings. People have their own opinions about how good pictures are. If you can't take it, don't leave pictures open to be rated. If you do, then don't complain when somebody isn't particularly crazy about the picture. What a bunch of cry babies. This is only about the umpteenth complaint of someone unhappy about the way a picture was rated. If you like Dave, you can only count the ratings above 5 or rate it yourself. Stop complainign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 3/3 psychosis? Yup, on a lonely island somewhere, an alcholic ex-Microsoft serf who hasn't washed or shaved in months sits at a terminal 24hrs a day just waiting for YOU guys to post a picture so he can give you a 3/3. Get real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe baker pine bush ny Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 i see your point Dave; wondering why it took an hour when normally it takes a micro second. he must have to use the can some time. it,s not a complant, it,s an observation. your OK with the 3/3 just wondering why it took so long. am i correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosshogg Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 When you consider that there are p/n members whose photos consist mainly of dogs, cats, and flower closeups, how can you wonder why something that is artistic is rated low by a few lowbrows? I am not as well viewed as many of you complaining, so I don't get as many pats on the back, but I know that there will always be that bastard that gives me a 3/3. But I also know that when several others rate it significantly higher, the 3/3 becomes far less meaningful, and that salves my wounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Nothing wrong with dogs, cats or flowers.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c.r._hips Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 As you don't know, ratings are meaningless. Your 3/3's only balance out the undeserving 6's and 7's your buddies give you. Keep whining though, it seems appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjmeade Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 David, I'm sure that hour delay just means the servers were slow that day. Those 3/3s are just there to let you know your image has arrived in the RR queue. Even Gérard Laurenceau's latest image, which has 50 ratings of 6/6 and above, has picked up a 3/3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenandrews Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 I've seen frequent posts about low ratings, and I can understand how it might seem a bit tiresome to some, but does that mean it's a subject inappropriate for discussion? Must every person who posts about low ratings be accused of whining or suffer other sorts of name-calling? My post in this thread was my first on this subject, and as I expected I was immediately pounced upon as being a baby. So be it. Yes, I agree that response to a photo is subjective and people are just as entitled to giving low scores as they are to giving high scores. On the other hand, as a member of a community I believe in being supportive and part of that means that if I give a low score perhaps I should do so publicly or accompany it with an explanation. I know I may be behaving purely solipsistically, but my impression is that there is someone out there who takes pleasure in quickly giving low ratings without being generous enough to explain. Can I state that impression without being called names by other members of this "community?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexguerra Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Ken Andrews: "Must every person who posts about low ratings be accused of whining or suffer other sorts of name-calling?" Well, it IS a direct invitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot_rosen1 Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 I would think that if your ego is such that it cannot take some people rating your photos as being merely average (as opposed to excellent or outstanding), then it is not logical to post them to be rated by others on an internet forum. If you only desire praise, perhaps the best thing would be to limit the audience to a group of friends. :-) De gustabus nome disputandem est. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrell_m Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 on a seven point scale 3/3 means below average but most people here work on a five point scale where 3/3 means total crap. And, alas, there are people sitting on the RR queue rating everything which fails to conform to their idea of interesting an instant 3/3 3/4. Flowers click click next. Children click click next. Nude with woman aged 24+ click click next.And they are quick too, declining to examine for nuance or difference. I've submitted a photo, clicked to confirm, clicked my workspace and opened the image-effectively 3 seconds after submission. Occasionally there have been as many as three rates waiting for me. Snap judgement I think it's called-a poor criteria for examining any artform, let alone condemning it to a 3/3. boring as it may be to say it again-the system sucks and it certainly fails as a method of determining the best photos submitted on the site. If anyone disagrees please say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenandrews Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Alexandre, please explain to me how posting about low ratings is a "direct invitation" to being accused of whining etc. Eliot, do you think it is not possible for me or other photographers to discuss this phenomenon as a matter of intellectual curiosity without (a) myself as the "ratee" necessarily only acting out of injured ego and (b) others immediately responding with scorn? Yes, I could show my work to a small group of friends, but I value the overall quality of work on this site and am interested in the input of active photographers, which most of my friends are not. Part of my curiosity about the mysterious 3/3 person or people is that I have no information about him/them or his/their motives. And I'm curious -- not merely offended of ego -- as to what makes him/them consistently (and extremely quickly) rate in this manner. But enough said. I believe my instincts were right, and I posted my first post on this subject against my instincts. Better to just continue posting photos and not get into a discussion. Too many people out there would rather accuse than discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot_rosen1 Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Ken, this subject has been "discussed" to death. You haven't said anything new here. You can't force people to like your work. That's it in a nutshell. Pnet has already elimiated the 1 and 2 ratings because of people's fragile egos. Now some people would have them eliminate the three ratings. Get over it. Get a life. Getting a rating of three oin pnet is not the beginning and end of life as we know it on earth. If someone feels your work is worth a three, who are you to criticize his right to post that rating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albany_katz Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 David, with all due respect, I would like to hear what what the person who gave your "photo" a 7 has to say that justifies that rating. The ratings system is juiced from top to bottom. Get over it and feel glad you have your "pals ' to prop you up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I suppose we could just send the boys round to anyone who gives you a 3/3...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinconroyfarrell Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 The 3/3 rating mirrors the scene in Martin Scorcese's "Taxi Driver" when the Robert DeNiro character Travis Bickle can express his frustration in no other way than to shoot his television. The 3/3 is a veto from an inarticulate, alienated modern man who does not see his feelings or needs represented by an artist community which claims to do so. A typical complaint is that the 3/3 is not accompanied by a critique. But a 3/3 is a critique. In many ways it is more articulate than the careerist networking chit-chat that passes for critique on pnet: "I love your work." The 3/3 is blunt and to the point. Elegant even, in that it is accompanied not by fanfare, but by silence. "Words are like a rolling mill," Flaubert said, "they thin out the sentiment." The man who gives a 3/3 seems to understand that silence can speak volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Am I the only one that thinks David was being facetious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 No. 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