What is up with the rating?

[lauralarson]

I am kinda confused. Several of my photos lately have rated in the 5's

overall. The thing I am wondering is almost immediately after I post,I get a

set of three's from a anonyamous rater. I genally only pay attention to the

rating I get from the members, which are generally are pretty good and I

don't mind critical feedback at all. However, If people give threes I wish

they would give a few reasons why or how to improve. Thier I said it and now

feel better. Here is an image that scored a three. Thanks, Laura Larson

[lauralarson]

SORRY, I didn't make the file smaller. Dang it,what a newbie thing to do. If you check out my site, you can see the photo. Thanks for your help.

[randall ellis]

This is something that comes up often - if you do a search you will likely find quite a few similar threads on the whole 3/3 issue.

 

- Randy

[Brian]

This particular "problem" is reported about once a week on this forum. There are apparently people who lurk on this site and deliver 3/3 ratings to new photos as they are uploaded. The problem is with these people rather than with your photos. Ignore it.

[sandysocks]

Yes, someone would have to be mean-spirited to give this 3's. Sometimes I suspect that some of the folks are dyslexic when it comes to the scores.

[rasmuslindersson]

Not much to do about this unfortunately. My guess is that many of these 3/3-ratings come from people who just want to mess with us all. <br>I've been quite pissed a few times myself, but the best to do is just to ignore them.

<br>Like Randall mentions, there's lots of threads regarding this subject. Just do a search if you want to read more.

[lauralarson]

Thanks everyone, I feel much better about the whole thing. I was about to stop posting, but will hang in thier. Laura Larson

[stephen_w.]

This is how I picture anonymous raters:

 

Thin, gangly, and slouching

 

Comb-over hair style

 

Vitamin D deficient

 

Pizza faced (pimpled)

 

Too much time on their hands

 

Your basic DOOFUS

[wigwam jones]

Yes, let's all give each other high ratings. Then we will feel good about ourselves.

[lauralarson]

I agree with Stephen W. Laura

[bobatkins]

Maybe they just don't like the photo. That IS possible you know.

 

3/3 basically means "I don't like it". Don't expect people to agonize over whether they give you a 3/4, a 4/3, a 3/3 or a 4/4. If they don't like the shot, I'm sure it often just gets a 3/3.

 

Remember a 3 isn't "bad", it's just "below average". Also, if people are sick of a particular subject (like cats or babies), they tend to score lower than they might with a subject they like.

 

A 3/3 isn't always abusive. Sometimes it's the appropriate rating.

 

Maybe the 3/3 raters arn't pimply faced slackers hiding in basements. Maybe they are artists with high standards or professional photo editors who actually rate on the image quality in relation to what they normally see in the course of their work.

 

Of course it's much easier to just believe your work is good and anyone who rates it as 3/3 is just an abusive moron with a non-functioning brain.

[bruce levy]

Stephen is right. I like to call the 3/3'ers schmucks on parade. You'll build an immunity to it. Just imagine having to be that person(s).

[lauralarson]

I think thier is something to what you are saying Bob, however, I went back and checked some of the highest rated photos over the last year and many had the same problem with 3/3's. Over all, the photos that end up on the top have something the others are missing. I think I will throw out the top and bottom score and just go with that. I am glad I asked the question, I am new to the site and was confused about how it worked. Thanks, Laura Larson

[brucecahn]

That is definately over a 3. I would say 5. Don't take it too seriously.

[giovannis]

Bob,

 

"Remember a 3 isn't "bad", it's just "below average".!

It's the lowest visible rating. Below average photos appear exactly the same as others really 1/1

 

Also, if people are sick of a particular subject (like cats or babies), they tend to score lower than they might with a subject they like.

 

I thought ratings were directed toward a "single" photo, not toward "categories"

 

I was wrong, apparently

[giovannis]

Sorry, can't edit the post. It was a "quote" "unquote" between Bob's post and my personal views

[bobatkins]

The ratings are whatever people chose to make them. If people totally hate pictures of cats, they are likely to give one a 3/3 even if it's a good picture. That's the way people are.

 

In in ideal world people would rate images fairly and with no bias. They'd rate a good cat picture as a 6, not a 3, though they still might give it a 3 for originality.

 

People rate aesthetics and originality almost the same for almost every image. It's pretty rare that the A rating differs from the O rating by more than one point. There's absolutely no good reason why this should be so. There should be 3/7 and 7/3 scores, but there aren't. People just don't think that way.

 

There's little logic and significant emotion in most ratings. People are people, not carefully programmed rating machines.

[les]

Well, I think that Bob may be right in relation to some of 3/3 raters. Some time ago I have received a 4/4 (or something like this) from a guy who rated the image directly. After seeing his work and the images he rated, and the scores he gave - I realized that 4/4 coming from him was a high praise indeed (probably not quite deserved at that). I agree that in many cases 3/3 is deserved, but in some cases it is pure abuse and that's is what gets people mad.

 

Why then not give people the right to "Disapprove" - similiarly to what can be done with comments on portfolio. One "disapproval" per image - and one ONLY. The result - one highest AND one lowest ratings removed. The issue closed. I think that would work, as it would only be effective in situations when there is indeed an anomaly.

Personally I am no longer interested in the issue, as I start having much more critical view of my pictures and my skills - but maybe it would help to make a lot of people happier (and make the system a bit better).

 

Any thoughts ?

[bobatkins]

It will be a while before ANYTHING is done to the rating system. Nothing will be done before the ACS update and then it will be a while since there will be other things to do and the gallery code is largely undocumented (according to Philip, I haven't seen it myself) and so isn't going to be easy to work on. It may have to be rewritten I guess (I'm not a programmer on this site).

 

There are much better schemes than simple averaging to deal with sets of numbers with outlying points (though you need quite a few ratings before you can say any one is an "outlier"). Using Bayesian statistics for example. Dropping high and low scores is the simple way. Of course you can't do much if you only have 3 ratings....

 

I'm sure if and when the gallery and ratings software is ugraded/rewritten, due attention will be paid to such issues. Just don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen tomorrow, because it won't.

[davidmccracken]

"Maybe they just don't like the photo." - Yes it is possible. However, we are submitting photographs for critique and so critiques should be mandatory in order to rate. If people are just interested in ratings they should be able to submit for rating only.

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

I love ratings! they are all over the ballpark for a some of my critique requests... from the generic 3/3's and up with every possible combination of Asthetics and Originality in between... to me this is a good thing. If my pictures evoke the exact same emotion across a broad variety of viewers, something is wrong. if I get NO ratings at all, I know it was not worth anyones (even anonymous) comments/ratings. this helps me to improve and analyse my style and plan for future shoots.

[davidmccracken]

Maybe you are the one person who would enjoy submitting your photos for rating only.

[rasmuslindersson]

I'm sure you're right Bob, a lot of photos are worth those 3/3s. And it's a pity that people also rate the category instead of just the photo, but I have to admit I've probably have done so myself. It's quite inevitable since it's all about taste.

<br>You write "3/3 basically means "I don't like it". Don't expect people to agonize over whether they give you a 3/4, a 4/3, a 3/3 or a 4/4. If they don't like the shot, I'm sure it often just gets a 3/3." <br>A comment would help a lot in these cases, since you don't learn what's wrong from a rating.

<br>

<br>You couldn't be more right about rating different for "A" and "O" by the way, just because a photo is really beautiful it doesn't automatically have to be original too. A lot of people, including me, should keep this in mind.

[tholte]

Leonard, your post was the best I have seen here on PN in four years about the rating system. It was mature, lucid, wise and accurate. Most of the individuals that are personally offended by a few 3/3's here and there won't like it but most of them will never improve their photography like you probably will.

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

Gee Tim, I am flattered by your compliments. I have already learned a lot from Photo.net. Now I will focus my efforts on what I really enjoy -wilderness photography. The bear pictures just kinda happened since I was usually in the mountains hiking. I took their "portraits" without getting killed or bothering them too much, it was more about capturing the moment. p.s. bears have really bad breath.