yianni Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Why when I give a rating of let's say 2/3 my rating does not appear on the photo's ratings? Isn't that unfair sice when I give 7/6 the rating is included right away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_gillespie Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 It looks like they do, maybe there is some delay in the ratings given and when they appear on the photo page. From you own profile page... This member has rated 382 photos on this site, with average ratings of 4.48 for Aesthetics and 4.34 for Originality. The ratings went to 265 distinct photographers. You can browse some of the photos rated highest by this member. Ratings Given 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Originality 4 15 76 125 83 71 8 Aesthetics 2 15 75 104 91 83 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yianni Posted November 18, 2006 Author Share Posted November 18, 2006 Thanks Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRX94 Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 1s and 2s will appear on your page and will be counted in the ratings you have given, but they won't show on the photos you rated this way. They have been inactivated months ago. Ratings currently range from 3 to 7, 5 is no longer "good", it's "average". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_gillespie Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Can you help me understand the ratings you referenced? When I go to the critique forum, click on a photo it brings up the photo in a larger size. At the bottom right of the image there is a drop down for Rate this Image. It starts with 1 and goes to 7. On my PC 4 is average, not 5 as you suggest. If the 1,2s have been disabled why would this not be reflected in this drop down. I have rated quite a few, several thousand in fact, with the 1-7 scale. I am confused. Thanks for any help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRX94 Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Well, 4 was the average as long as ratings ranged from 1 to 7. Now that 1s and 2s are "disabled" and don't count anymore, the real rating range is 3 to 7. Thus 5 can very well be considered as the new average, even if it's not official. Well, since some people may still consider that "5" still means "good" and that "3" stands for "very bad" to "under average" (including me, most of the time !), this might not always be true... the big thing is : blocking 1s/2s mostly made the rating system a little more meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn w callahan Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Since 1's and 2's don't count toward the rating score, 5 falls in the middle between 3 and 7 (the numbers that do count) so I think that's why Jay thinks this rate is equivalent to "Average". 4 does mean "Average" and 5 does mean "Good". Giving a 1 or a 2 is the equivalent of saying the photo is garbage. Since this is supposed to be a constructive learning site, those rates are disabled and you, instead, are encouraged to state what specifically you don't like and what could be done to improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_gillespie Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 I suppose that each critic, viewer, establishes what is appropriate for their ratings. I think having an odd number of choices allows for people to place a vote in the middle more as a way of saying, "I saw your photo, and it was ok." If the ratings were even numbered people would then have to choose if it was above or below, here it comes, Average. Since the numbers are still visible, I will continue to use them as presented with 4 as my average. I did read a USAToday survey a few months ago that still makes me laugh. 76% of American drivers who were asked, believe their driving skills are above average. Wait for it, really! We have all created a false sense of our abilities, at least driving. So why not photography? It almost sounds like Lake Wobegone. Cheers all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJT Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Hi Yianni. There are many such postings in this forum about this subject; all you need to do is search for them. For example there is <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FOGl" >this one</a> and also <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EuXm" >this one too</a>. In particular, you will want to pay attention to the explanations given by Brian Mottershead, who was the Editor of this site.<p> Though I myself feel that the low ratings need to be reinstituted I can not possibly condone doing so at this time, nor should the privelege of fully active rating be given to everyone. The reason the low ratings are effectively inactivated is because of the rampant abuse, and the concomitant complaints from the victims, that occurred in the past by anonymous members low-balling thousands of photographs. Regards. 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