An Answer to the Ubiquitous Frustration of Ratings?

[robert x]

I am sorry for making a joke. I take it all back.

There was nothing at all about what you said that I should have picked up on and I was

just being a brave and big-mouthed fool, protected by the fact that this is on the internet.

In real life I would have said nothing, for fear of getting my clock-cleaned, for I am a

coward.

<p>

Let me totally clarify my new point of view so there can be no further silly "fighting":

<p>

<i>I agree 100% with John and his analogy about raters here on the site. I apologise

unreservedly for my comments which were both infammatory and out of order.

<p>

Being an anonymous rater *is worse* than being a victim of a paedophile.<br>Paedophiles

*get a better deal* than people who post photos on photo.net.</i><p>Sorry John. I never

realised you were Irish. Now let's get back to complaining about poor ratings.

[steve_lowther]

I applaud all who have expressed their opinions thus far.

 

One thing is for sure: there is no perfect rating system. Anything we do is going to have some degree of subjectivity to it.

 

The goal is to do what we can to minimize subjectivity. I used to belong to the Professional Photographers of America and affiliated state and local organizations. It seemed the more local (and less qualfied the judges) the louder the objections to the judging.

 

Truthfully, however, there really was never much rancor. I had experienced some frustration. The national judges were very well trained. The closer one was to the local level, the smaller the pool of qualified judges.

 

I bet we could easily put together a pool of qualfied judges, say 200 - 300, that are based on criteria as having 10 to 15 images that have been anonymously rated above 5.0 -- or something thereabouts.

 

We could benefit a great deal from a judging system that is as tried and true as the PPA's. They have already gone thru the growing pains, and while it is not perfect, it comes much closer to it than what we have so far.

[jgalyon]

Robert, I made an attempt to apologize while still holding my ground and then politely asked you to clarify a comment you had made...and I get sarcasm. All I have to say is this...if you ever visit Chattanooga, Tennessee and should want to meet me and try out your sarcasm face to face...e-mail me and I'll give you a working phone number at which I can be reached...and we'll see how intelligent and witty you are on that day. If you feel you have to comment further so that you can have the last word (and I would bet money you will), feel free to do so...there will be no reply from me. My last word is that truth be known, you won't be coming to Chattanooga any time soon. Now relax in the safety of your anonymity, go to my photos and click 3 until your fingers bleed...I couldn't care less- Mr. I'm not man enough to use my real last name. (Can't wait to get to the keyboard to fulfill my prophecy can you?)

[jgalyon]

Steve, I owe you an apology. You made some very valid points and I enjoyed reading all that you had to say. Sorry that I had to be in the way while having a little personal battle with another member. Honestly Steve, I've determined that we might as well forget any substantive changes in the rating system. I can't say that it won't happen...but apparently this has gone on for years and little if anything gets done about it. PN staff has to read posts such as yours daily and doesn't even address it, or else they don't even bother to read it anymore. It's like attempting to determine what Bush and Chaney really talk about. Unless you're in the room, it's all speculation. Wish I could be encouraged, but what reason would I have to be so?

[dangoldman]

Steve, please note that not all kids rate that way, i certainly dont. In your example of people pictures, portraits etc, i simply dont rate them because i dont have much interest in that genre. If i am looking at a picture of a genre i associate with and study (birds, airplanes, sports, etc), then i may rate. A low rating, i almost always acompany with a comment, if i even feel compelled to rate in the first place. I usually try to only post high ratings, and submit as constructive of a critiue as i can for those that i would otherwise rate lowly.

[steve_lowther]

John Galyon wrote:

"Steve, I've determined that we might as well forget any substantive changes in the rating system. I can't say that it won't happen...but apparently this has gone on for years and little if anything gets done about it."

 

It is difficult to blame the PN staff for their reluctance to get too involved. A few years back they made a bonafide effort to deal with the "mate rate" problem. It was a group of people who rated each others images usually at inflated scores. Things did get better.

 

Our best hope is if the new system I am proposing becomes a source of revenue by leaving the old system in place and only allow subscribing members use the new system.

 

Dan Goldman wrote:

"Steve, please note that not all kids rate that way, i certainly dont."

 

I must agree with you, Dan, just from observing my students.

[jgalyon]

If that's true Steve and I'm sure it is, then I stand corrected. Being that I haven't been on here "for years", I was perhaps wrongly assuming that comments by several other members that indicated a reluctance by PN staff to address the issue, was reliable information. All I can say is that the dialogue about the problem with ratings is alive and well, despite others saying it is a "dead issue", and I don't hear anything from PN staff.