Giving Ratings of 1 and 2

[bkromer]

I was curious and recently went back to look at the ratings I've given to

particular photos, some great and some awful. I found a few I though were

deserving of a 1 or 2 and rated them accordingly. When I click to see what

others have rated this photo the 1 or 2 I have given is not listed. Why does

photo.net waste everyone's time with the option of 1 or 2 and then delete them

as if you've never rated at all. What a farce.

[phoneguy]

If you want to leave a 1 or 2, why don't you go in and leave a comment telling the person you think it is a 1 or 2, and tell them why.

[ivan_dzo]

1's and 2's were banned for the sake of peoples ego's and to stop flame wars about 18 months ago. This post will probably be deleted rapidly as well, as discussion on this topic is not encouraged.

[.th]

i miss them.

<br>

pls bring back ones and twos...!

[bruce levy]

"i miss them.

pls bring back ones and twos...!"

 

Yeah, then they can join the 3/3 "Schmucks on Parade".

[bobatkins]

1s and 2s are not deleted as far as I know. They are retained in the database but I don't think they are displayed to users.

 

I'm not quite sure exactly what is done with them, but maybe Josh can enlighten us on that point.

[davidmccracken]

I submit my photographs for <b>critique</b> and that is what I want. I feel the site would benefit all the photographers here if people were forced to write critiques. A number means nothing without words. <br><br>If people were not bothered about critiques they should be able to submit for rating only. <br><br>Put simply, in order to rate a photograph a critique should be mandatory.

[bruce levy]

I agree with David. That would certainly and simply solve the problem.

[.th]

<i>"A number means nothing without words."</i>

<br><br>

 

well, it means something on the "i like, i don't like" scale. which is what the system is about, has to be about. but needless to say, it has nothing to do with critique.

<br><br>

 

still miss them though. i post imgs for crit, and most of the viewers don't do nothing and move to the next one, some rate, and the rare few leave a comment. which is the nature of the game i suppose. i just don't think it's fair to those who honestly hate my pics, and want to express it (wordlessly), to be forced to give a three, when what they really want to do is "<b>1!</b>". or zero ,-)

[bruce levy]

We could have a little box to check that states: "check here if you wish to receive anonymous 1,2 & 3 ratings". We could call it the "masochist box".

[.th]

bruce, i hear you.

<br>

but if one is playing the game of rates, one surely has to be able to stand the occational "1", just as the occational "7". no?

<br><br>

 

live well

[bobatkins]

A mandatory critique in order to rate would not increase the number of useful critiques, but it would certainly drastically reduce the number of ratings.

 

If people have something to say, they will say it. You can't force them, and, if you do, you probably won't get anything useful.

[philg]

We have no idea how this particular corner of the software works and there is no documentation for it. Until we relaunch on ACS 3.4 and rewrite the photo sharing system, it isn't possible to answer a question like this.

[bruce levy]

"one surely has to be able to stand the occasional "1", just as the occasional "7". no? "

I don't think that addresses what the problem really is. When people post 3 or 4 pictures, and the "Schmucks on Parade" sweep through and give immediate 3/3's to anything, whether good or bad, people become frustrated. And the petty, little people who do it are able to show others how powerful they can be, without needing any credibility, rhyme or reason. It indirectly diminishes the amount of exposure one's shots receive. Of course if one is dependent on ratings, that's a whole different question to be answered.

[peter_lawrence]

I've always found it funny that no one complains about receiving underserved 7/7 ratings

on their photographs, especially photographs with absolutely no originality. It's rare to

see someone get a 7/4 rating or 7/3 rating on his or her photograph (a photograph that's

aesthetically very pleasing but not original). Yet, these are probably one of the most

common types of photographs on photo.net.

 

Instead, people hand out 7/7's like there's no tomorrow, especially to their friends'

photographs.

 

So IMHO people who a willing to receive 7/7's should also be willing to receive 1/1 (even if

their photographs do not warrant such a low rating.)

 

Frankly, I feel most people who post photographs here on photo.net are more concerned

about getting high ratings versus getting honest critiques of their work. That's one reason

why I never have posted my photos on photo.net. I don't take photographs to "compete"

with other photographers; I just photograph for my own personal enjoyment.

 

Yet here at photo.net, it seems the most important thing for many photographers who

post their photos on this site is to get the highest ratings possible so their photos appear

in the Top Rated Photos page. Whoopee!

 

Get a life! Photography is more than just receiving 7/7's on photo.net.

 

BTW, I used to honestly rate and comment on people's photos here on photo.net thinking I

was providing a small service to fellow photographers who wanted honest opinions about

how others viewed their photographs. I've stopped rating and commenting on photos

here because I realized only a VERY TINY fraction of people who post their photographs on

photo.net want an honest critique of their work. Most just want praise and high ratings

regardless how phony the praise and ratings might be.

 

I think the best thing Philip could do with the photo.net rating system is to get rid of it

completely, including the Top Rated Photos page. Just allow people to comment on other

people's photographs.

 

And the front page of photo.net could just display some of the photo.net staff's favorite

photographs taken by photo.net users, as chosen by the staff, and rotated in and out of

the front page as the staff sees fit. No ratings needed.

 

Of course, a lot of photo.net users would hate this idea because they would be unable to

manipulate the system to get their photographs selected for the front-page view. Oh well,

too bad for them.

[bruce levy]

And these are observations from someone who neither posts, rates or critiques.

[bkromer]

I've just taken alot of information, views, and critiques about the current state of the rating system and I have drawn my own conclusions.

 

Peter Lawrence

"Frankly, I feel most people who post photographs here on photo.net are more concerned about getting high ratings versus getting honest critiques of their work." and "I think the best thing Philip could do with the photo.net rating system is to get rid of it completely"

 

I do not believe I am one of these people. However, I enjoy getting ratings on photo's. It shows someone took the time to critique even if it was only a couple clicks of the mouse. That said, the first thing I do when I log in is check to see if anyone critiqued my work with words. I don't believe it is a black and white issue. You can appreciate both the rating system and literary critiques just the same.

 

Getting rid of the rating section may also deter people from daily use of photo.net. The rating system is fun and I enjoy taking part in it. I have ideas to improve the system and will lay them out later in this post.

 

 

Bob Atkins

"A mandatory critique in order to rate would not increase the number of useful critiques, but it would certainly drastically reduce the number of ratings."

 

I agree and this is a terrible idea. I can like or dislike a photo without knowing what I dislike about it or how to improve it. I'm a beginner at photography and my opinion I feel is worth very little to the advanced photographer. Besides, sometimes I feel like kicking back in easy chair and browsing through the rating section where I will rate some and some not and if I have something valuable to say I can. This is an excellent reason for me to log in on a daily basis. I get new ideas, new techniques, and I find new people to put in my "interesting people" list. I don't know if I would be so active in photo.net if there wasn't a casual way to participate.

 

All this leads me to the solutions I think may help. And Phillup some of this may or may not be possible.

 

1. Base the rate recent feature to include all the photos randomly for the last week. Currently, the rate recent feature randomly displays new photos. Including a week of photos would make it more difficult to find a friends photo to critique well.

 

2. Using the same script I assume the post photo critique option, which allows only 4 photo critiques per 24 hours, with slight alterations. If some critiques 5 photos with the same combination of Aesthitics and Originality than this person will not be able to post ratings for 24 hours. This could be 4 photos or 3 or 6, whatever number works best to promote honest evalutation without abuse.

 

3. Maybe limiting non-paying members to 10 or 20 rates or again whatever number works best to promote honest evaluation without abuse.

 

I believe these 3 things would deter the buddie to buddie campaign and the abuser.

[robert_g.1]

Perhaps credibility of the rater is the key , does a seasoned pro have more credibility than a entry level photographer ? or maybe just a viewer? I think so , so how can the rating system work? Does everyone have an equal rate , the present system gives that , but how can the rate be an educated one? I think to take the ratings seriously is a mistake .But getting photos viewed requires lots of rates and good ones .A new system is needed . The number issued does not matter as much as who gave it and why .

[bkromer]

I disagree. You don't have to be a seasoned photographer to know if the photo is orginal or aesthetically pleasing. I've found alot of seasoned photographers rate photos higher if it mimics their work. The rating system is a casual way to give credit to well taken photos that display some originality. It's fine the way it is take away the abuse.

[jmichael]

I came across this thread as I was looking for a place to comment about a frustration I have with the photo.net site that rears its ugly head every once in a while. There will never be a perfect system and like Robert said above me, taking the ratings seriously is a mistake. This site is addicting sometimes...you go out and shoot something that you end up thinking is great. You post it here expecting to get rave reviews...only to find that the ratings are below your expectations.

 

Regardless of the reason for the more-than-occassional low ratings amid a fair amount of higher ratings for an image, you can't help walking away with some disappointment. We all would like to get high ratings for things we submit which we believe deserve high marks. The reality is that most times, you don't. The reasons for the low ratings are rarely known because comments are rarely given.

 

I don't get upset about the lack of comments because I know I don't rate and comment enough on others. I have a small circle of people on the site that I visit and I commment on their images, but I don't go out there enough to comment and rate others. I submit and go back to working on my own images, or working on my personal website. So I am a flaw in the system. And I am sure that there are many other "flaws" like me.

 

So here is my frustration that has led me to today's conclusion. I am done submitting photos for ratings. A part of my reason for submitting is just to share an image with others. That's how I am learning to be a better photographer...looking at the work of others. I hope that someone sees an image of mine and it teaches them something...a new perspective, how not to shoot an image...something.

 

So, from now on, I can send those out just for critique. My small group will see them as they kindly revisit my site and courteously comment on something that catches their eye...and a few people in the masses may see something they like as well and I will take some joy in that. I am going to try to maintain this new thought process and forego the addiction of trying to get into the top photo first page.

 

Which leads me to today's experience that brought me to this long winded conclusion. I know this has been said before, and it will surely be said again, and argued about forever, but you only need to scan the top photos to discover the key to consistently high ratings...

 

PUT A NUDE WOMAN IN THE PHOTO.

 

The ratings will take care of themselves.

[bruce levy]

I disagree Benjamin. I think, on some level, that someone who has been taught, or has learned to "see" (possibly in a new, more educated way) can discern certain aspects of art that may not be inherently born in all of us. Why are there museum curators, or juried exhibitions, if not because a more educated eye tends to bring "higher" art to people's attention. All one has to do is look to see that there are some pretty crappy shots garnering fairly high ratings, either because of "titillation", or cutesy-poo-ness, or because they love dogs, or cats, or insects. While some fabulous shots get low ratings, maybe because a nipple is hidden, while the next shot has legs wide open. One is not generally born with an instinct towards aesthetics except in unusual or lucky circumstances. But one's feel for aesthetics can be enlarged and educated if one wishes it to be.

[bkromer]

That may be true, however, there are also many of those same individuals who may be snobbish in the realm of photography and give lower ratings for some aspects of a photo that are terribly minuscule compared to the overall quality. My point is there are alot of amatuers on this site, myself included, who enjoy the rating system because it give the photographer a general "ataboy". We like that. A number rating does nothing for you educationally, regardless of the critiquers experience, it's too vague. Hopefully once and awhile you get the opportunity to have these pro's comment on a photo and leave valuable advice. The rating system, though, should remain casual, require little effort, and be anonymous to promote frequent use. It does need to be changed, however. And these are the points that need to be addressed.

 

1. Buddie to Buddie undeserved high ratings

2. Abuser low ratings

 

That's it.

[les]

Benjamin, I would like to be rich and famous too. When dreaming - why limit ourselves to small things ?

[bkromer]

By the way Mike Ferras, going back to the second post. He'll probably never read this, but a 1 or 2 rating does not deserve a literary critique. Apperantly if I belive it is a 1 or 2, everything is wrong with the photo. Here is my critique of every 1 and 2 incase I should leave you one. Out of focus, poor lighting, overexposure, no subject, poor composition. Please take your camera, find a subject and take 1000 pictures of it with every angle, distance and perspective in all different exposures, speeds, and balance. Stay there all day and catch it at all different times of day. When your done, go back on a cloudy day and do the same thing. And then do it again. After all that you should have 1 good photo. After awhile you may be able to narrow it down to 100 photos.

[bruce levy]

Are you asking everyone to be judged by one criteria, pro and novice alike, so you can give 1's and 2's. Maybe there's a strata of photnetter that are excited novices, wanting to share with whoever has the time to look. I would think you would want to spend your valuable time critiquing photos more on your own level of expertise, rather than create a "mystic" around the "good photo" and ragging on a novice.

Your stuff is good. But it does nothing constructive, for them or you, to tear down someone else's work anonymously. Try leaving a good critical suggestion, even if it's "focus your damn shots".