Revenue/Ratings

[lightwait]

The rating system on PN, or its related problems, is probably one of the most

discussed topics on the site, yet the system persists and the hopelessness

increases.

 

So here's an idea: Don't change it, but make the complete ratings information

for a given image available to the owner of the upload . . . for a fee of .99

cents.

 

So for the price of an itune, a photographer gets to peak behind the curtain.

 

Think of the revenue!

 

Please! Talk amongst yourselves.

[philg]

Interesting idea. Thanks! We are probably going to limit ratings, beyond a certain number, to verified readers. I think that will cut down on a lot of abuse since there won't be a significant number of ratings from bogus accounts.

[lightwait]

Thank you, Philip, that sounds like it could help, but man, the 99 cent thing would sure be fun.

 

Right now, doing the ratings thing is like riding a roller coaster. My suggestion would make it more like the "Hammer," that old amuzement park ride, designed to shake the change (and puke) right out of the willing participants. Please . . . sleep on it. If you don't want the money, put it in a fund for promising PN artists or something.

 

:-)

[Matt Laur]

P.G.: You might also take a cue from slashdot.org (not that I'd ever want this site to descend to those depths - yeesh! troll city)... subscribers there get to see and comment on certain things before the non-paying members do. Maybe a variation would be that subscribers' critique requests get queued up immediately, whereas non-paying users get in line for X minutes/hours. Obviously, the "please look at my stuff" factor, here, is a big draw. Some immediate gratification is part of the appeal... that's something people want, so sell what they want. Paying members get to be involved more immediately, and get to show their work with less Amazonica. Just a random thought.

[joshroot]

Tom's idea is actually one of the most interesting ideas that I have ever seen regarding the ratings system.

 

Yes, Philip, Bob, Jeremy, myself and all the others would still have to deal with the never-ending cascade of ratings complaints. But maybe site revenue would increase to a level that it would make up for it.

[les]

Agree with Tom :)

I would most certainly be willing to pay $0.99 to see who is pestering my images with all these 3/3 ratings. Although I already have a pretty good idea - due to a little program which I have written and which checks Who Is Online and does appropriate cross-referencing.

[bobatkins]

Just what are you going to do when you find out who is giving you low ratings? Make more work for moderators?

[les]

Bob, I have no such designs. I am strongly against making more work for moderators, but equally strongly for having a good rating system. I know, not an easy thing to accomplish. Currently, some anonymous raters seem to enjoy the freedom to rate poorly and remain hidden, while direct raters seem to be a bit too cautious sometimes. I believe that removing anonymous rating would work towards restoring some sense of balance. In my experience people act with much more consideration when their name is attached to their acts for all to see.

 

My little detective work is just out of curiosity - I just want to know what drives these people.

 

Regarding my pictures - I have no illusions how good or how bad they are: they are not 7/7 material, and I would not give this rating to any of my pics (please feel free to remove all 7s from my pics if you feel underworked :D), and I would give myself way less 6/6s), but also I would not give many 3/3 ratings to myself. Vast majority are technically competent pics, not very original with maybe a few exceptions - and even these are more by accident than by design.

 

So - can we have a bit more robust and balanced rating system ? :D

[lightwait]

>>Just what are you going to do when you find out who is giving you low ratings? Make more work for moderators?<<

 

No way, Bob. You all have enough stuff to do.

 

I can't say what I'd do (don't know who is trashing my work), But whatever I did, I'd do it from a slightly more-informed position.

 

But for conversational purposes, I might, if I saw a pattern, ask the offender to reconsider the poor/rates. Or I might ask them to give me some sense of what they're thinking . . . in light of Other images they've rated better but yet are clearly prone to the same rationale -- that sort of thing.

 

That's about the extent of it. You state your position, and hope others are capable of seeing it.

 

I'd then, if I still cared, might try my best to articulate why I felt a particular rate fell outside the boundary of intelligent disagreement -- because that's really what we're talking about for the most part on rate discrepencies.

 

If persuassion doesn't work, then the only alternative is to pray for the offender's soul.

 

Once that's done, in a civil world, you've done what you can.

 

I think it's not unreasonable to believe that, for many, all that's needed is a slight relief from some of the Frustration that comes from posting an image you believe in and not being able to make sense out of its reception. Not that this measure would promise that -- but it might help.

 

Ya know . . . if you turn a hose on a blaze and it doesn't put it out, you can always turn off the water.