Mysterious ratings

[steve lamplugh]

I am fairly new to the site, but I have been busy rating photo's and

portfolio's of other members. I am extremely fair, and believe that if I am

going to rate something lower than a 4, I should have the integrity to explain

myself and offer suggestions. I have NEVER rated anyone 3/1 and yet this

rating shows on my Ratings stats! (Showing I rated someone else this rating).

How does this happen? I usually only rate or comment on photo's which I find

artistically or technically pleasing and would never rate anyone this low. Can

anyone explain?

Thanks, Steve

[nanette]

Hi Steve: This question has been covered numerous times. If you do a search for 'ratings,' you will find several answers and more.

 

Welcome and don't dwell on the ratings. :)

[steve lamplugh]

Thanks Nanette. I certainly won't dwell on any low ratings I receive. I am very much a begginer, and expect to be rated accordingly. My concern was that others might be getting rated incorrectly by me.

[WJT]

Steve, I think Nanette misunderstood your post. This problem has occurred but actually not very often. I would take a look at the ratings that you have given out; the link is located about half-way down in your home page. You can see each of the ratings that you have given and on which photographs they were applied to. If you find that you truly did not give these rates then there is a serious problem somewhere in the site and must not be ignored. It is possible, but unlikely, that your account has been hacked. I would report this problem to Jeremy at the PhotoNet abuse department.<p>

Ratings are what drives the Gallery and the TRP. There is a lot of incentive for some people to abuse them. Ignoring a problem does not solve it. Regards.

[minicucci]

While I certainly agree with Walter, I think what's happened here is a misread of the stats.

Steve, your rating stats say that you've rated 3 images at a rating of 3 for Originality and that

you've rated 1 photograph at a rating of 3 for Aesthetics. All of your other ratings are above

3 (both O & A). Based on your comment, that's probably correct.

[steve lamplugh]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I took a look at my stats, and out of 564, I have only rated a 3 three times. I looked at the shots involved and can honestly say they are better than a three! Is it possible I could have accidently clicked on the number while scrolling through the entries? Should I send an apology to each photographer who received the wrong rating? Steve

[gungajim]

If you never give out a 3/3 that means every photo you look at is average or better. If you only look at TRPs, I suppose this is possible. Otherwise, you are bound to run across some legit 3/3's. I wouldn't lose any sleep over periodically being off the mark when rating a photo. Just keep the 7/7 clicker well-oiled when you see my photos!

[john falkenstine]

So what if I look at your images and don't give them a rating at all? Isn't that a ZERO by default and far worse than a 3? Remember, those images that get NO ratings fall away quickly in the sorting engine.

[steve lamplugh]

John: This is a good point! I'm just getting the hang of the whole ratings thing. Thanks.

[jdw]

Steve, If you go to the portfolios of Professor Francisco Robeiro do Vale , Birte Ragland and my sites you will see we are discussing it in detail and trying to do something about it. John

[amyebr3]

I also wish people would explain why they give threes. I am new at photography too and how can I hope to improve if I do not know what I am doing wrong. There have been many times someone has pointed out a problem in my pictures that I did not see before but is then so glaringly obvious it is embarrassing. I can promise you that I always look for that mistake in the next series of pictures that I take. Furthermore I find the advice (when given) to be extremely helpful in my journey to becoming a photographer. Just to say someone's picture is not good does nothing toward helping them grow. Just my humble opinion of course.

amy

[jan_piller]

Pn does not care what what we lowly photographers think. A girl rated a 3/3 on my image and even when I asked her for help and to explain why she gave that rate she refused. I checked her stats and she gave out all 1's and 2's - 65 of them in one day. She has only posted three photos - good ones but damn nasty of her to refuse to comment even when I asked for her to. So I figured she was thinking maybe her rates would then make her look better? who knows? - I went back and changed my previous rate of her photo to a 3. Petty I know. So sue me. PN regulates how many 7's we can give out but not how many 3's or 2's or 1's somebody can hand out so this person can just come on PN and throw the 1's and 2's around like confetti. Very illogical and very unfair. So Steve - never sweat the rates - they mean nothing anyway.

[jdw]

Jan.. You must not let that 'girl' get under your skin, the object of the excersise. As you advise Steve -they mean nothing anyway.so.....SMILE >>>John

[petervannugteren]

Imho a rating should only allowed to be given after a comment.

Maybe that would filter out the 3/3 and 4/4 robot-hooligans.

Right?

[velter]

Ratings are only a rough idea of what people think of your pictures. I found that my ratings did improve over the last 6 months after I went for photo lessons and I think they are not a bad way for assessing ones abilities. The ratings become more accurate when many people rate a picture. But just like there are those 3 rating terrorists, there are also the happy 7 raters, who will give a 7 for a bad picture.(And nobody complains about them!) :-D

[rogerleekam]

Agree with Peter van N. Ratings from a non-expert who may be biased are totally meaningless. I think it is pure laziness (or worse) to give a number without justifying it - benefits neither the photographer nor the rater. I post my images for critique only, and almost never rate others. I seldom get meaningful comments, but better that than getting a nonsense number.

[zigzag]

So, Are 1's, 2's and 3's almost equivalent? (i.e. useless).

 

I find it much harder to separate the 5's to 7's and would support more increments there. And then we get into 'Pro' and amateur ratings - I have found on multiple occassions that it helps to understand the general capability level of the photographer in order to try to give them feedback based on their existing ability - i.e. to go to the portfolio and get some background. I know this is probably wrong as in a photo competition this is irrelevant (though in business, reputation sells).

 

Take Walter as an example (apologies but you are the only name I recognise, being new). I rated a few of his photos. Which is better to give:

5: Meaning 'Good', but not one of YOUR best and you have others which would rate Very Good and Excellent in Comparison.

7: Meaning compared to 95% of the posters on here yours stands out from the field but then if I was only judging featured, high ranking photographs, this one would be a 6.6 judged on the spread of these 'Pros'.

 

I rated someone 3, they asked for a reason - the reason was that compared to the 10 previous reviews I had seen theirs appeared weaker for reasons a,b,c - but then in the vast photo space of photo.net it may rank higher - also it was called 'Trees #3', implying a set/body of work. In a random fly by I rated it stand-alone.

[john_kroy]

No. 1's and 2's if recieved should be a wake up call. I get them sometimes, and either I dont care or it makes me think about what I could do to improve. Sometimes I get them if I rate someone elses work less than average - revenge attacks go in the dont care category.

 

It must hurt to get low marks all the time, but if you are new, have not mastered the art of presenting your photos on the web in a good way (leveling, sharpening, border treatment) then compared to some of the staggeringly high level of quality you see on this site - you are going to suffer until you up your game.

 

3's you can expect when people are "taste" rating - ie: rating if they like the photo, not how good it is.

 

So I think there is a difference. The real problem comes when a good photographer gets hit by a 1 or 2 vandal and cares about it more than they should :)