Ratings on photos

[jwhite3.0]

I guess it's getting a little fiesty in here. The ratings system is set up so that individuals do not have to give written critique but rather a numerical grade. There is no quick way to write a quick blurb in the current format. One has to click on the image then click on contribute a critique then back up to the rating forum page. Granted this is not hard labor but if your goal is to look at a set number of images then you will be more inclined not to take the time to do the extra clicking.

 

How about including a dialog box under the numerical ratings? So you would first write your blurb then click on the numerical ratings then automatically move onto the next image.

 

We all agree that we're not going to stop the ratings bashers but we can get those that are tapped for time the ability to write a quick response then move on. We've all given 3/3 (myself included) and felt justified but maybe did not have the time to stop and give a little advice. I am definitely guilty of that but I also feel justified in the fact that others also give that same photo a low rating for whatever reason. Probably rare that I have a given a 3/3 to an image that others have given 5/5 or 6/6.

[nicolerenee]

Would it be a good idea to give a stricter defenition ( I cant spell :) ) to what constitutes a good/better/best photo or bad and worst photo?

 

Maybe instead of just giving a broad rating in 2 catagories give an individual rating for the specific things that make a photo generally bad or good?

 

Composition 1-7

 

Light 1-7

 

DOF 1-7

 

Origionality 1-7

 

Aesthectics 1-7

 

etc... or something along those lines? At least that way you'd have a more complete understanding of what you were lacking in a photo when you got a rating.

 

As far as my portfolio is concerned, I average a 4, which I know is generally deserved but is an odd ammalgamation of everything between 3 and 7. Strange how so many people can look at a thing and come away with a different view of it.

[mike dixon]

<i>Strange how so many people can look at a thing and come away with a different view of it. </i><P>

Considering the photo.net user base consists of thousands of people, from dozens of different countries around the world, ranging in age from teenagers to senior citizens, with vastly different social, economic, and educational backgrounds, and photographic experience levels from a few days to several decades, I think it would be very strange if people didn't have different views. What I find strange is that some people think everyone <b>should</b> give the same rating to a particular photo.

[bruce levy]

"What I find strange is that some people think everyone should give the same rating to a particular photo."

 

That's a "straw man" argument that doesn't do justice the the above questions.

[nicolerenee]

You have a very valid point. I was thinkng more along the lines of the fact that a photograph of mine (a beginner with mostly mediocre work) has ratings from a 3/4 to a 6/6 and those on broad terms. I guess in my mind, a good shot is a good shot whether it appeals to my personal preferances or not. I can appreciate the skill and compostion, lighting and so forth of a photograph without enjoying it the same way I can appreciate the talent of a musician without enjoying his style of music. But I should know better than to think everyone would think the same way :)

[j.kivekas]

This must be the thousandth thread on the same subject. Nothing really changes, because it is hard to implement new systems over the old one and people simply won't agree on one compromise. The last change was when the scales were reduced from 1-7 to 3-7.<p>

Really where do you need the points for? May be we should ask for systems that would increase comments rather than watch out ratings. May be we should have ten optional tick boxes or slides with somethin like:<br>

- Bad composition - good composition +<br>

- Bad colors - nice colors+<br>

- ....<p>

 

No, I don't expect it to happen. But, hey, let's all write today three comments, each of us.

[les]

"What I find strange is that some people think everyone should give the same rating to a particular photo."

 

Not the same. But when it comes to expressing one's opinion on the subject "Is Ferrari a good sport car" - the fact that one doesn't like sport cars should not affect their opinion. No matter whether you like it or not - it is one of the best the money can buy.

 

So, when someone does not like, say, insect pictures - then it would be best to refrain from expressing one's opinion instead of rating the image 3/3 "because I don't like insects". What does it have to do with the quality of the image ?

[bruce levy]

Juha and Leszek...good points. But the larger something becomes, the harder and slower it is to move, if it moves at all.

[tom_appel]

Damn people, it's just a rating. It's the text that counts. Check out the people who actually bother to write something. If you like what they've shot, take their advice to heart. This isn't a ratings contest.

[olli.pekonen]

If you want to have good ratings in photo.net, according to

my 2 yrs of tenure here, here's my best advise for a

good picture:

 

Take a shot of a wrinkle faced old man with a funny hat on!

 

You will get those "ooh, I can see how wise he is" kind

of comments. Funny hat implies that he is from elsewhere.

Elsewhere means that someone actually travelled to get

the photo taken! This merits good points. Bad teeth are

also good. Moreover, wrinkles mean wisdom. Wisdom is good. Good means good ratings.

 

It is as simple as that!

[j.kivekas]

Olli, it's not worth getting frustrated - windmills. If you can't win them go with them. Remember that it is also a nice place for a net portfolio.<p>

I can hear the voice of an eagle:<i>"Take it easy, don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy."</i>

[tom_appel]

I am SO sick of wrinkly old people from foreign lands. "Ooh, I see he has seen the world, 6/6. even though its blurry and over exposed."