By-passing the Rate recent.

[darrell_m]

Is there a way to by-pass the Rate Photos section and simply have

ratings/critiques from people who visit the category page direct.

I've noticed with a few pictures that I get slaughtered in the first

hour or so and then get a fairly good response once the picture is

not going out to a general audience. Basically, I've no interest in

insect pics and rarely click on the macro section. Pets interest me

even less and I've only looked at that section a very few times.

However, on the rate recent tab, pets and insects are going to come

my way. I'll ignore them but not everyone will, granting a summary 3

or 4 rating before moving on. If I dislike nudity I might grant a 3

as a protest, tough luck to the poor (and possibly fine) artist who

works with naked bodies. So, what I'm asking is there a mechanism by

which I could, if i so wished, not allow a photo to go through the

Rate Recent list. I should add that this is something I would

certainly not use for most of my submissions, just occasionally, if

it were possible

[seven]

Darrell, <p>I think the only way is not to submit for critique; I do that and receive informative feedback anyway.<p>

(You don't have to rate in the queue to move on to the next image, just click <i>skip to next photo</i>)

[darrell_m]

Thanks Seven. Problem is if I don't submit for critique then i am relying on people finding my folder a little too randomly. I think about 2/3rds of my folio has not been up for critique. Most have 0 comments. A few have one or two. I like the quick feedback of the rating/critique system as it gives me a (admitedly very) rough idea of popular thought but occasionally I would rather limit the audience to one who prefer a particular genre rather than the current general audience.

[bennyboy]

I nearly always receive an extremely mixed bag of ratings, although on average these are an indicator of peoples perception of an image, sometimes you just get a crappy rate for a photo that doesn't deserve it, I'm guessing this is purely for the reasons you state above, dislike of the genre, or expecting that a good photograph must portray beauty. Of course some/most of my photos just plain stink :D

 

That said, I think I've a few images that are probably the same quality of some that get to the first page of the TRP, but for whatever reason they don't, perhaps I'm just a very poor self editor, perhaps I produce images that don't appeal to the masses, perhaps It's because I don't mate rate, I'm not really that bothered. I would be happy to get a photo into the TRP simply to get some more exposure but for now I'll just keep plugging away via comments.

 

Maybe your method could work well, naturally it would exempt work from the TRP, is that such a bad thing?

[darrell_m]

thanks ben. Like you i get a pretty mixed bag. Oh, those deluded, blind fools. the trp is not of too much interest to me (that said, i won't loudly demand its removal if i found one of my photos high up there) but i would sometimes like to avoid ratings from those who just don't like a particular genre and STILL mark regardless (oh my god, another boring sunset, looks technically competent, 4,3, next. Damn, wish people wouldn't put nudes on the site. My kids might be in the room 3/3, next.) I have noticed, particually with nudes, that the average rating increases, sometimes appreciably, once the audience become genre specific. To get a perhaps more genuine idea of the pictures worth it would, on occasion, be worth by-passing the audience who have no interest, or even have an active dislike, of particular genres.

[mg]

"To get a perhaps more genuine idea of the pictures worth it would, on occasion, be worth by-passing the audience who have no interest, or even have an active dislike, of particular genres."

 

Your idea seems mostly to avoid bias interfering with ratings, and I agree. But there are many ways to achieve this. I posted a thread recently showing that ratings were much lower, generally speaking, in the fashion category, than in the landscape category (for exemple). Brian added that insects and birds categories were rated even higher in average than landscapes. From all this, it appears quite clearly that people's category bias affect heavily the TRPs. Not a good thing imo - although one could argue that the TRPs are, precisely, meant to show what's POPULAR, not what's good in each category.

 

As I see it, a way to partly solve this problem would be to perhaps make category ratings anonymous, and to at least accept category ratings as valid to determine the default and long term average TRP. Another way (separated or combined with the previous one) would be to propose some sort of "Rate Recent" queue by category. Etc.

[niranjn]

> To get a perhaps more genuine idea of the pictures worth it would, on occasion, be worth by-passing the audience who have no interest, or even have an active dislike, of particular genres.

 

It really depends on what you are measuring. Your method would just filter out *negative* bias.

[crob2go]

QUESTION ALREADY ANSWERED BY PN MEMBERS AND THAT IS JUST CLICK ON "SKIP TO NEXT". SOMETHING THAT WERE SAID BY PN MEMBERS THAT I DO AGREE WITH AND BASICALLY IT COMES DOWN TO THIS, IF YOU ARE NOT IN TO A PARTICULAR GENRE WHY RATE IT AT ALL. YOU ARE DOING A DISSERVICE TO THE PN MEMBER. PHOTO ARE PUT ON PN SO THAT A MEMBER CAN GET A FEEL FOR HOW OTHER PEOPLE PERCEIVE THEIR WORK. I HAVE A ABSTRACT FOLDER AND I FEEL PEOPLE RATE IT AS IF IT'S NOT THE PERFECT SHOT, EXPOSURE OR WHATEVER. PEOPLE WAKEUP IT'S AN ABSTRACT THEIR IS A STORY IN THE PHOTO.