Giving Ratings of 1 and 2

[jgalyon]

What I'm about to pose for your consideration may be the best possible way to have my recently acquired membership to be revoked...but if that's the case, so be it. I'm new to the site, I'm a novice photographer, and it is altogether fitting that my perspective won't carry the weight of members who have been here since the beginning and have demonstrated over time, both by their photographs and their input to forums such as this that they deserve such respect. But I've found that regardless of the topic of discussion the view of a novice is often less cluttered and obscured, so hopefully I can offer something of value. I don't know the founders of the site, nor most of you. I have no hidden agenda, no malicious motivations. I simply came here to share by newfound passion, to learn, to meet good people. The ratings are obviously a source of contention ...and I can understand why. I counted the first 20 photographs that were posted in the Critique Forum during a particular span of time tonight...and the first rating for each posting were without exception: 3/3, 4/3, 3/4, or 4/4. Photographs from different categories, different skill levels...but the same low to average marks regardless of how remarkable the picture was. There was a young lady who started a thread about this and related that she was a statistician and had somehow ( i know nothing of how this works...)used a software application to pinpoint with over 98% accuracy, a single individual who was giving these type of ratings to her own photographs. Some reacted to her post with sarcasm, contempt, and rudeness...and confirmed her good humored and self-depricating suggestion that she might just be paranoid with more needlessly mean- spirited remarks. Gladly, most were courteous and quite empathetic to her complaint. How to solve the ratings issue is a topic that could be discussed until long after all of us are dead. And probably will be...for in my short period of time on PN I have the distinct impression that the powers that be have no intent whatsoever to do anything about it. If the thing the statistician might be paranoid...hear this. I've considered everyone's perspective I've read as to who these "3 Fairies" are and what their motivations might be. They may be techno geeks with no life and simply bored...so that sit at their computers and type 333333 until they're bored, and then they throw in a few good 4s. It may be a pissed off member exacting revenge because someone gave him what he feels are undeserved low marks. It may be individuals conspiring to increase each others ratings and damage the ratings of those they see as their competition....it may be any combinations of the above...or it might be some sick person who screws with our minds as some kind of warped mental masturbation. While these possibilities may account for some or all of this problem, there's one scenario that I'v never heard mentioned. Could this be the work of "the elves"? I'm not accusing them...I don't know them or anything about them. But if I look at this as objectively as I can...it seems more logical and more feaseable that these people have the opportunity/ access, the expertise, and the possible motives to manipulate these ratings. This is a multi-million dollar business, and with business, especially big business, comes issues of power and control, greed, and misguided thinking that says the end justifies the means. We see it in business, we see it in politics, we see it in little league. I have no expertise concerning computers...I can barely turn mine on, so please forgive any faulty terminology I'm about to use. But, in talking with a friend who is very computer saavy, an accomplished amature photographer, and a long time member of PN and he related that a simple logarithm could be used in a software application that could be used as means of controlling ratings to whatever purpose is desired. You could easily keep certain people at the top, others at the bottom or somewhere in between...and accomplish it with a "seemed" randomness that could not be detected without other software such as the "paranoid statistician" used. I began to consider this when I found that it just doesn't seem plausible that this is entirely the work of a few nerds or cliques of people conspiring to assure themselves high ratings. Neither do I believe that with the technical expertise that these people that they CAN'T find out who these persons are, if they exist ...and put a halt to it. There's less support for this rating system than for the war in Iraq. Yet there's a glaring refusal to address it. I may be totally wrong...and once again, it's not an accusation...it's food for thought. If you think this is Oliver Stone class paranoid, cubed...then think again. We have a Congress and an Executive branch that insist that every move they make is to protect and enhance the lives of it's citizens...yet we know it's only politics as usual. If in the name of national patriotism we can be deceived and duped by our own government that we elect...based on the belief they will act in our best interest ...do you really think it's beyond a bunch of elves do the same thing?

[les]

Hell, first time someone called me a young lady...wrong on both accounts (including gender), but right on the money where paranoid personality is discussed :D

[bkromer]

How about randomly arranging the the numberical order of ratings everytime a rate request is displayed.

[les]

Mate - don't get your knickers in a knot about it. It is the way it is. Trolls existed and will exist for as long as there are people who let themselves to be aggravated by their actions. Nothing to be done. The issue of 3/3 and 7/7 has been discussed to death, it is now dead and buried. The identities of all raters are known to the system administrators - the problem is there is no good way of dealing with it. So, the best solution is to ignore...

[jgalyon]

Sorry Leszek...I must have gotten two different posts confused, sir! Not really sure what you meant by "right on the money where paranoid personality is discussed...", but really don't have my knickers in a knot. I just think there is more than what meets the eye here. I've seen a number of good ideas about how to address the ratings issue...but those who can do something, do nothing...and according to many who have been on the site for years, that seems to be the status quo. I don't think I'm being the least bit paranoid actually. What I've brought up is perfectly feasible...that can't be denied. Can you honestly tell me that this system can't be "fixed", or that there could be no possible motivation for such a fix? I reiterate once again...it's just speculation, but I don't see it as far fetched. As for the subject being dead... I know it's been discussed so much that people having to read yet another post on this topic might wish it were dead...or wish "they" were dead, but it's not dead simply because you wish it so. It will forever be a topic of discussion until it's properly addressed. But...I assure you that I'm not going on a crusade to try to change it. Like you said Leszek...the identities of all raters are know to the system administrators...but I don't agree with the next part of the statement..." there is no good way of dealing with it". There are many good ways of dealing it. No will to do deal with it is the issue. Why?... is the big question.

[bruce levy]

Benjamin, I was think more about your original post. Imagine this...You walk into a room and, incredibly, Steichen, Stieglitz, Bresson, Cunningham etc. are all there for a little get together. Incredibly you happen to have your stuff with you. Now's your chance. You start to open your portfolio. They're standing around and a couple glance towards your work. You say "Can I get your opinion on some of my stuff"? They all walk away saying they don't have the time,- but Steichen turns back and says "and your stuff sucks". I'll leave you with that.

[bkromer]

Bruce, If you went back to my original post then you would know that my concern was the fact that a 1 or 2 are offered but in reality are not options at all because they are not counted. Why have them at all? Beside your above statement means nothing to me since I have only sparked an interest in photography with the last two month's and have no idea who these people are and hence I would not approach someone I did not know seeking comments on my portfolio. However, I do understand your point, but I still insist a casual rating system is fun and I would like it to continue with corrections. This does not mean that I don't like literary comments on photos. The two are not exclusive. I enjoy both.