Somethin' fishy about those ratings...

[jdw]

The argument about posting retaliatory ratings and abusive E-mails does not stand up..'If you can't stand the heat,get out of the kitchen'. If you feel you have been wrongly rated you should at least have the right of reply. With the anonymous system you are denied that right....... PN does not ban the dreadful nudes that appear endlessly upon the site and why should they,if you don't want to look at them or comment upon them, you just ignore them. The same criteria should apply to ratings...... The 'I'll get my own back' brigade will soon get sussed and get tired of their nonsense.. I still say it is the up-and-and-coming young photographers who suffer from the anonymous raters simply becauase they do not know what is, or what is not, a genuine rating and it is they, least of all, who need their confidence destroyed just as they are beginning upon what might be, for the talented few, a life-changing career............John Warren

[mike dixon]

<i> The argument about posting retaliatory ratings and abusive E-mails does not stand up.</i><P>

It isn't some theoretical argument. It's a solid fact about past behavior which created significant problems for the site.<P>

 

<i>With the anonymous system you are denied that right....... </i><P>

The right to demand explanations from people who think you have below-average images doesn't exist--not here, not in the real world. People choose a different wedding, portrait, or event photographer; editors and publishers reject photo submissions; stock agencies and galleries reject portfolios--all of this frequently happens with no explanation.<P>

<i> 'If you can't stand the heat,get out of the kitchen'.</i><P>

So this doesn't apply to people who ask strangers to rate their photos, but it should apply to people who don't want retaliatory rating, comments, and emails because they gave a rating someone didn't like?

[jdw]

Sorry Mike, I still cannot agree.It may cause problems for the site but none that cannot be controlled. In the real world, and I was in that real world for 50 years as a pro I got rejected countless times BUT I could always get back to the Art Director, Agency, Editor, and get an explantion on why the reject. Rarely did I not receive a reply and nine times out of ten it was not because of the 'quality' of the photograph, it was just it did not fit into their brief. At present you can give a ctitique and PN rarely has trouble with people retaliating. You ony get real problems when people cannot find out what they are doing wrong and this is where the anonymous ratings falls down. If PN are so concerned, let them get rid of ratings all together and just have a critique. Look at most threads and ask yourself why is it so many members get upset about ratings and not critiques.....John

[mike dixon]

<i>Look at most threads and ask yourself why is it so many members get upset about ratings and not critiques. </i><P>

I look at a hundred or more threads each week, and on average, there's less than one new thread per week about the ratings. Of the thousands of people who use the ratings system, only a fraction of one percent of them come to the forums to complain.<P>

<i>It may cause problems for the site but none that cannot be controlled. </i><P>

John, you've been here less than six months, but you assume you know more about the problems at photo.net than the people who have been dealing with (and trying to minimize) those problems for up to ten years. I realize people don't like to hear this, but a few threads complaining about anonymous ratings each month is nothing compared to the amount of genuine abuse that was occurring when ratings weren't anonymous.

[jdw]

Mike, I hear what you say and I am not convinced - Ask yourself why the likes of the top photographers such as Prof. Francisco de Vale, Glen Norris, Birte Ragland, myself and many others will not be renewing their membership and going elsewhere. If you read the 'raters' threads you are the only one who seems to defend the status quo.Whenever I reply to the young up-and-coming photographers their main concern is the anonymous 3/3 ratings and I constantly have to tell them to ignore them because they are meaningless.(So what is the point of having them). P N are to blame for this state of affairs.Again ask yourself why nothing below 3/3 registers and yet 7/7's and 6/6's are left alone, Ask yourself why, just 3 months ago my photographs received views in the thousands and suddenly 200 is a top figure. Why, because PN are manipulating the figures.There may be a very good reason but, old pro's such as myself will not have our intelligence insulted because we cannot get to the source of our grievances and our fears for PN's weaknesses across. A number of young and talented people have asked Birte and myself not to leave as they take very much to heart what the experiences pro's have to say about their portfolios....They lose.....not us.....John

[mike dixon]

<i> Again ask yourself why nothing below 3/3 registers and yet 7/7's and 6/6's are left alone,</i><P>

Ratings below 3/3 are not shown or included in averages because 1) they make up only a tiny percentage of ratings given, and 2) moderators got tired of dealing with claims of abuse just about any time someone received such a low rating.<P>

<i> Ask yourself why, just 3 months ago my photographs received views in the thousands and suddenly 200 is a top figure.</i><P>

A few months ago the method for views was changed. Before, if a thumbnail for your image showed up on any page, that was counted as a view. Now, it only counts as a view if someone actually clicks on the thumbnail and loads a larger image.<P>

While it may not be as much fun as coming up with conspiracy theories, you can learn the explanations for why things are the way they are if you bother to read through the archives.<P>

<i> old pro's such as myself will not have our intelligence insulted because we cannot get to the source of our grievances and our fears for PN's weaknesses across.</i><P>

You can act indignant, you can talk about how professional and experienced you are, you can threaten to leave (and say that everyone's begging you to stay), you can claim there are evil conspiracies afoot, you can hold your breath and stomp your feet if you like--I assure you, none of these things will make the photo.net administration <b>more</b> likely to make it possible for you to "challenge" people who give ratings you don't like.

[jdw]

Mike, Again you are missing the point,it is not me 'stampimg my foot about the ratings' I don't care about ratings for my photographs and I do not give them out.The people who do take notice are (and I keep repeating myself) the young up-and-coming photographers who get not only confused but generally dis-heartened by 3/3's handed out by people who don't even bother to look at their pictures. I personally do not want to challenge "people who give ratings I don't like".What I challenge is anonymity,therefore, a democratic reply by image-makers who would like an explanation of why a rating was given..PN deny that right and the worry about 'people getting their own back with abuse' does not hold sway. I don't want to trawl through acres of archives to find out what you have already explained, I want PN's directors to have the good grace to answer our queries and try to find away around what is obviously a nonsense. I don't claim 'EVERYONE IS BEGGING ME TO STAY' and think it is a conspiricy, just bad manners John

[mike dixon]

<i>PN deny that right </i><P>

There is no such right. You're not doing up-and-coming photographers any favors by creating the expectation that they are entitled to an explanation why someone doesn't like their photo. They need to get used to the idea that not everyone will like all of their photos.<P>

<i>I want PN's directors to have the good grace to answer our queries and try to find away around what is obviously a nonsense </i><P>

When the new photo.net software finally gets up and running, the site will probably make some major changes to the ratings system. If the past is any indicator, some people will welcome the changes, and other people will complain about them bitterly. That's been the result every time a change has been made (and it's not unusual for the people who are the loudest in demanding a change to be the same ones complaining about the changes made).

[djackson99]

Mike and John,

 

Thanks for clarifying past conversations so I didn't need to wade through the archives to find out the "why's" and "why not's" of this dissatisfaction with PN.

[brandon.r.foster]

I have an idea. Quit complaining about the fact that you got a 3/3. I have received many on images that typically got a 5/5 or 7/7. One mans trash is another mans treasure. I have a better idea. Anonymous and REQUIRED critiques. If you rate something a 3/3 you must write at least a 45 word critique that will remain anonymous. The reason that I say this is because it would still allow people to express their opinions without fear of retaliation, but express them with reason. Of course, I could just be being a moron. The outcome of this would be, no 3/3 ratings. Honestly, if I don't feel like leaving a comment on a 1/1 image, I will rate it 4/4. Don't take this to heart, but it is true. I also don't think that there is any rating fidelity anyhow. No one wants to hurt anyone's feelings. That is the problem. We are all petrified that we might wound someone. Well, I welcome the 3/3. It tells me three things. Foremost, there is still something to laugh at. I am just getting started, but I am damn good. I have the respect of my peers that I have met face to face, and they are helping me. Second, some of my shots suck. Fine. I won't post them. Third, there are some people that are jealous, and don't know what good photography is. Fine. They can stay in the dark. I am Brandon R. Foster, and I wear the 3/3 as a badge of honor. Please feel free to rate my work, my only limit is the limit that PDN imposes on me. it would all be available to rate otherwise. I will also add, that if we make a 3/3 be a known contributor, then there will be nothing but 4/4 ratings. Great! We are all average, even though that is not the truth. The fact of the matter is, this: There are people that don't belong here. Some of them will rate a photo 3/3 because that is what they have gotten. Some of them will rate a photo based on the hotness of the model that was in it, irregardless of the fact that the photo is NOT original. That is human emotion. If a photo can evoke that then it deserves a 7/7, even though it is not. That is what we as photographers are trying to do, EVOKE EMOTION GOOD OR BAD. Loose your pride, and accept it! You know it is good, and others know it as good. IGNORE THOSE THAT DON'T! Quit being a child. Besides, what do you think would happen if we had to leave a comment on a 3/3? They would stop! 4/4 would become the new 3/3, and soon after everyone would be complaining about getting a 4/4. Over time the scale would HAVE to be extended to 10/10. Get over yourselves. I have gotten more than my fair share of 3/3's. I even e-mailed Phillip Greenspun directly about it. I grew up recently. My vision is my vision. If you don't like it, close your eyes. People have bought my work, so your 3/3 doesn't matter. Work harder, and I will rate you higher.

 

My name is Brandon R. Foster. You can find me at http://www.photo.net/photos/brandon.r.foster

 

I wear the 3/3 as a badge of honor. So feel free!

 

Thank you for your time,

 

Brandon