A question about the rating system

[lupine]

I have a very quick question regarding the ratings and there may be an answer somewhere

on the forums but I can't seem to find one. It seems as though I have a consistent rating of

3/3 on most of my images. This is always anonymous. Is this part of the way ratings are

averaged or is it just a single person ratinig 3/3 regardless of what the image is.

Inevitably, it's just one individual, there's never more than one person voting those

numbers. It can be an image that gets overwhelming 6's and 7's but it seems that 3/3 is

usually there. I don't know if this is part of the system that averages or just someone with

a chip on the shoulder. If anyone has the time, I'd appreciate some input.

 

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.

 

Sincerely,

Paul Chepikian

[leeblackman]

Honestly, I don't really even pay attention to the anonymous ratings. Thats all fine and dandy. What you'll probably find is that over time, the longer your on the site, you'll get to know a few people who have similar taste and will provide a good constructive critisism. Its just like anything else, you know.

[will king]

Paul, yesterday there was a ratings abuse issue occurring. There's a thread about it further down in the list. I usually get a token 3/3 rating, even if every other rating is 5s, 6s, or 7s. Although it's frustrating, and you start to question the motive behind the low rating, I would try to ignore it and write it off as a case of ratings abuse or someone who has different tastes in photography. I'm sure there are a lot of photos that really do deserve a 3/3 or lower, I just find it hard to believe that someone honestly believes a photo is a 3/3 when everyone else rated it 6s and 7s, and of course it's always anonymous. On another note, has anyone noticed the top 2 photos currently on the default TRP?

[richbh]

I learned quickly to simply ignore the rating system. Some of what I consider to be my very best photographs have gotten an average of 3.6 or 4.2 while others I just slap together in PS are getting 5s and 6s. There's simply too much variance in individual taste to make the rating system even marginally valuable.

 

HOWEVER - the comments are what I appreciate: those who rate low and anonymously never leave comments of any type - those who rate high with their names are the ones who leave comments and are the ones I pay attention to.

 

It would be nice if the anonymity could be eliminated altogether, wouldn't it?

[will king]

Well said Rich.

[ken_thalheimer]

Rich about said it all. Care about he critiques and possibly the rates which are not anonymous. Possibly post in critique only. The rating system is awful

[davidmccracken]

The ratings system may be awful but this is a ratings based site and people do place importance on them.

[bens]

Well, believe it or not, there are people who consider this a place for valuable comments on their work, regardless of what they think of the ratings also available.

 

To the extent that is what you, reader of this thread, seek, it is certainly possible to obtain such insights, but it take more work than just posting a photo. As has also been exhaustively discussed in this forum, many of us have found that by steadily providing honest, constructive critiques and follow-up comments on the photos of others who are willing to do the same, and responding in the same fashion to critiques of our own work, it is possible over time to develop dialogues with people whose thoughts you find valuable. The site is what each of us makes of it. And as a voluntary endeavor by all participating, one must give in order to receive.

[tholte]

Paul, Rich and Will,

"It would be nice if the anonymity could be eliminated altogether, wouldn't it?" No it would not actually! You guys have been here less than a year and you don't really know what a zoo the non-anonymous rating system turned into. You guys think it's tough to get some views now, in the old system if you did not have images of the Italian countryside at sunset you were out of luck. The best strategy is to keep cranking out photos that are interesting to the serious viewers here on PN. You will never get anything constructive done if you worry about low rates.

[bens]

Here, here, worth repeating:

 

"You will never get anything constructive done if you worry about low rates."

[will king]

Tim, I NEVER said that the site should get rid of anonymous votes. Although I no longer rate anonymously, I do not expect other people to follow in my footsteps. I make it a habit to comment on each and every photo I rate. I agreed with Rich regarding comments being more important than ratings. I would also have to echo Ben's comments regarding the site being what you make of it. We have all been the victims of low rates without a name or a comment. To be honest, it still frustrates me, but not as much as it once did. Why? Because overtime, I have built a rapport with, to which I believe, are honest people who will give me honest feedback. I would much rather get a detailed critique than a 7/7. What really urks me and a lot of other people is the kind of nonsense that occurred yesterday. Yes, the ratings were deleted but it's the fact that someone would spend that time and energy to be so reckless and malicious.

[will king]

Ben, BTW thanks for the comment on my photo. I left you a return comment.

[tholte]

Will, I hear you and used to feel the same way. Establish your own space and identity, crank out the images and make the jokers that mess up the system irrelevent. The jokers love to see all this "the system is unfair" stuff, it's what they live for.

[will king]

Tim, very wise words. I'm trying man. It's hard for new guys like me not to get frustrated when I see a 3/3 on one of my photos. You and Ben are definitely photographers to look up to, not just with the quality of photographs but a healthy philosophy as well.

[lupine]

Thanks so very much to one and all for all the input. Though I've only been posting for just

a short time, I realized a little about everthing you guys were talking about. I'm too new to

really have an idea just yet of what I think would work and wouldn't work but I realized

very early on that what was really important were the comments and the time someone

took to comment and not so much the ratings. You've answered my question in that I

wasn't sure if the initial 3/3 was part of some formula and I see that it's not. What it is is

sad for a certain few to abuse the system. I am off to Colorado (yes, with camera in hand)

for a week but I plan, upon my return, to stop by and view the sites of the few who've been

kind enough to respond. I tend to sincerely put time aside and view and take in the work.

In my younger days, I've been in far too many offices of people who opended by book

(upside down), ordered lunch, talked on the phone, handed me the book back, nodded

and made a "I'll call you gesture." I decided then and there I would always be far more

respectful in looking at the work of others. Once again, sincere thanks for all of you. And

truth be told, there is some wonderful, amazing work on this site. Often inspiring.

[mottershead]

You should stop paying attention to individual ratings. The ratings are really only worth looking at in the aggregate. Any photo is going to have a range of opinion.

 

Even a photo with an average in the 6 to 7 range is going to have some people who think it only average, or even below average. Especially when you realize that many people are rating the subject not the technical merit or originality of the image, and that people have wildly different interpretations of how to rate "originality".

 

You need to look at the distribution and the averages of the ratings, assuming you look at the ratings at all. Unless you see something odd -- like a bunch of 3/3 ratings showing up all at the same time on photos that have already been through the rating queue -- don't bother about 3/3 ratings. That isn't how to get enjoyment and improvement of your skills from the site.

[richbh]

To sum up:

Concensus then appears to be: 1) pay attention to non-anonymous ratings; 2) pay attention to critiques; 3) generally ignore anonymous ratings.

[m_t4]

Actually Brian, that makes sense, ie look at the distribution.

Without realising it thats what I seem to do. Just have to accept that some people will think a photograph of mine is a 7/7 (despite the fact that I don't), others will think it a 3/3.

 

For newbies to photography, the ratings gives us some confidence that what we're doing is at a decent standard. With time this will probably become less important.

 

Of course the most benefical element are the comments left.

[paprika]

I like the ammoniums rating, on the other site without ammoniums rating you always get a positive critique hoping they receive the same from you. There is no real feedback on your photo. I receiving 3/3 all the time, but looks like everybody else so all of us penalized the same way.

[yankfan]

I'd pay more attention to critiques if I got some. Nobody seems to bother.

[takermaker]

my question is if i post pictures that are b/w and they be my own silver gelatino process and printed on canves by my own technique as i'm reviveing the old silver gelatino glass plate negative process -how can u rate such pictures just by looking at the results -i fail at color but i admire the color complimentary combinations that the members have taken -thank goodness everyone is different as it helps me in my world.I admit i cheat and study your contributions -A 3/3 posting what ever that is as i dont know your system many say is not fair ---when it comes to creativity that is different than expression and it stimulates imagination and is one reason i study u guys work -are they trying to say it should have been done a certain way-if thats the case, everybodys work would be the same --my technique u cant judge if u cant do it -just the results is only available -its not cut and dry for sure -after thinking about what i just said i think its best to be a nobody

[jayme]

Tim is correct about the times before anonymous ratings. It was more than a zoo. People would e-mail you & harass you if you gave them even a 5/5. It was a mess. I agree with the anonymous rating system. Will, you know I try hard to comment on most images I rate. I most times rate individually too.

 

What I would like to see is the option to rate either anonymously or not anonymously & all ratings to go into the totals. I'm dreaming now:) Many times, because of the way the rating queue is set up, I never get a chance to rate the top rated images anonymously.

 

Oh well, I agree with Brian, basically forget it & move on to a more learning environment, comments.

[mg]

"I just find it hard to believe that someone honestly believes a photo is a 3/3 when everyone else rated it 6s and 7s" - Will King.

 

Well, I don't find it hard to believe at all - in fact, I think it's rather the norm.

 

Rich Hugunine , feb 11, 2006; 07:29 a.m.: "those who rate low and anonymously never leave comments of any type - those who rate high with their names are the ones who leave comments and are the ones I pay attention to."

 

Not always true at all. I have rated low numerous images on which I explained why I thought they were weak. And I'm not the only one. The thing is thatmost people get tired to be insulted for half of the negative critiques they post. Sadly, threads like this one, which seem to suggest that all 3/3 ratings tend to be abuse are discouraging the last few people who actually post negative comments along with 3/3s...

 

Admittedly, there surely are many abusive or nonsensical 3/3s around, but I suspect there are also many honest ones. More comments along with honest 3/3s would help, as if they would become the norm, true criticism would be revived on the site, and 3s without a comment would be more readily identified as abuse.

 

I think there's nothing more useful than a low rating that comes along with an explanation. A way to promote these explanative comments, that's what we should be looking for imo.

[will king]

<i> "I think there's nothing more useful than a low rating that comes along with an explanation. A way to promote these explanative comments, that's what we should be looking for imo." </i>

<br>

<br>

Marc, first of all, I couln't agree more. I try to comment much much more than rate, just because that's how I would like my photos to be treated. I even get annoyed at an anonymous 7/7 ratings because I want to know why. I think what sparked my frustration was the abuse that was going on about 3 days ago where someone(s) dropped over 100 3/3 ratings in less than an hour without any regard to the photo. The moderators have since deleted those bogus ratings, which in return confirmed my suspicion that it was indeed bogus rates and ratings abuse. This is what really disturbs me. I can take a 3/3 ratings if it's honestly what the rater feels the photo deserves, but the if the intent is to be malicious or some sort of self agenda, than that's what I have issues with.

[jgalyon]

Amen...Will, but if the rating system is as abhorent as it obviously is...why don't the "powers that be" do something about it...especially in light of the fact that NO ONE seems to think it works?