What can be done against the 3-3 rater.

[eric_brody]

My family always LOVES my images. When I have then critiqued by an experienced, skillful photographic colleague, they frequently fare less well. I learn considerably more from the criticisms than from the well meant adulation of my family. Ignore both unquestioning praise, as well as unsupported criticism. They're only pictures after all.

 

Eric

[stephen_w.]

Robert,

 

The sample size is undeniably large enough to be statistically significant. I don't know whether PN calculates the statistics of ratings, but 1 to 7 MUST be considered, as I have seen many 1 ratings. I presume the bell curve is skewed to the right (not as much as grade inflation at "elite" US universities, as has been reported), as, anecdotally, there are more 7/7 ratings than 1/1, and the posters who request a critique MUST be pleased with their photo(s).

[yankfan]

Carlos,

Check again.

[root]

The original question had to do with statistics, not comments. It is a fact that a 3/3 is often the first rate and the lowest. There has to be an explanation, although the person in charge of the gallery might prefer to avoid it rather than confront it.

[mike dixon]

<i> It is a fact that a 3/3 is often the first rate and the lowest.</i><P>

Is it a fact? Or is it just an often repeated assertion?<P>

I just went to the ratings queue, and of the first 20 photos that had ratings, none of them had a 3/3. <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KgQh">For another recent thread about 3/3 ratings</a>, I checked the ratings queue five times over a period of about ten hours, reviewing 100 images, and I found a total of only six photos that had a 3/3 rating (I had no way of determining whether that was the first rating, but none of the 3/3 ratings seemed especially unjust).<P>

I think the most-credible explanation is that it evokes a relatively-strong emotional response when people see a 3/3 rating that they don't agree with, but it makes little impression when they see ratings they do agree with, so people greatly overestimate the number of 3/3 ratings that are given.

[bruce levy]

Mike, I've followed your ratings explanations for a while. While they may be generally true, they are specifically not. It is true that there is a spate of first and quick ratings of 3/3. Your "real time" testing of this theory doesn't really prove anything. It's noble of you to try to track down the problem, but it's being done with tunnel vision. You suggest sending examples to abuse@photo.net, which I have, and am still awaiting results. Maybe it's happened to me because many of my shots are nudes and we have a fundamentalist or two doing the ratings- who the hell knows? However, your statistics does not negate "my lying eyes".

[dbcooper]

I never noticed this issue until I saw it crop up regularly in this forum, so I started watching my submissions. The instant one of my photos appears for rating, it already has 3 to 4 anonymous ratings with mediocre numbers.

 

Besides the irritation of a lack of input of constructive criticism from these cowards, when other later ratings (both anonymous and non-anonymous) are calculated, I've had several images kept from the 'top rated photos' pages by these 'pre-publication' assassins.

 

I don't sit and seethe about it, and I don't validate myself or my craft on the basis of anonymous ratings, but the unfairness of the system is definitely beneath what Philip Greenspun started. Not that PN has grown and he's pretty much disinvolved, there are some admins that are impressing their own misguided ideas about what PN ought to be, including censoring valid paying-member criticisms of PoW.

 

Looks like PN is starting the process of collapsing under it's own weight. Sad to see that happening.

[Photos by Hank]

Suggestion - can they make it so you have to comment or critque in order to rate? This would force the 3/3ers to at least explain the ratings. Just a thought.

[root]

Mike, I won't say it happens to everyone, but it happens to me a lot. It happens within a couple seconds and rarely does anyone else rate it that low from then on. It could be style preference, as mentioned above, but the bottom line is that so few people are rating and the queue essentially throws you out after five rates even if they are direct or from the category queue.

 

To upload a decent image and have it get fewer than a hundred views after a week used to be a statistical impossibility. Now it's routine.

 

. . . and neither Phil nor anyone one else understands or seems to care.

 

For openers, I wonder how much the gallery views were reduced by putting a page of all-time great thumbnails on the home page. You'll note they all get multiple comments every day.

 

Since you like to do your own research, you might want to check the rating average of the raters whose images appear on the home page.

[engelgrafik]

I don't understand what is so wrong with ratings? Maybe if people understood the difference between aesthetic quality and technical quality, and also be perfectly HONEST, it would help a bit. But since aesthetics is very subjective (based on a person's knowledge and appreciation of art in general), people don't really think about using it.

 

I've seen photos that hat were horrible technique... not great exposure, not sharp, etc. but there was something so expressive that I gave it very high aesthetics remarks. I have seen photos that were technically superior but the photos were the same old boring picture of a butterfly. I rate that a low aesthetics, but a high technical. This shouldn't make people angry. It should TEACH them what people think about their photography so they can improve or realize things they may need to learn.

[jgalyon]

I'll make it short. Either nothing can... or nothing will be done about it, so learn to live with it, get over it, ignore it...whatever. I ranted about it for weeks when I first signed on and eventually came to this conclusion. Spend your time enjoying photography...don't WASTE your time worrying about ratings. Trust me, the 3/3 thing happens on a consistent basis to the best and worst alike on this site. But...don't listen to the a--holes who will tell you that even posing the question means that you have an overly inflated view of the value of your work, or that you're a whiner who can't take criticism, or those who throw misc. insults your way because you're the three zillionth person to bring up the subject. I've learned to live with the fact that it's one of those uncontrolable things in life such as people who drive 45 in the fast lane. They'll always be there, so pass them at first opportunity(like...now) and don't look back.

[bruce levy]

Jeffrey and John, for me, your two posts pretty much covers what I feel to be the truth about the situation. Thanks.

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

take some photographs from world renowned Ansel Adams, Robert Bateman and so on and post them under your name here on photo.net :)

 

then wait and see how many 3/3's "you" get and how quickly.

 

of course you should put a disclaimer somewhere to avoid assorted copyright/plagarism/legal hassles.

[jgalyon]

oh how many times I've considered that scenario Leonard... :)

[bbb1]

I am also very much bothered by those Anonymous 3/3 raters! Not that my photograph deserves better, but I did put some effort to obtain such photograph, and I think it worth at least 4/4 for efforts! no?

 

Everybody is complaining and we did give some suggestions how to improve this problem but it seems that PN Administration like us to get stressed by those envious and jaleous 3/3 anonymous!

 

I have suggested several times now that PN make another system of rating, very suitable and very simple!

 

Meaning >>>>> First Comment then Rate <<<<<<<<<<

 

But nobody cares, and I am very much frustrated by this Anonymous People, who are hidding because PN approve it!

 

Dear PN Administration, this big, huge PROBLEM is very much SOLVABLE! Everybody knows it till now! Except PN Administration and Management!

 

Thank YOU,

 

Biliana

[eimages]

I get at least one 3/3 on every one of my images, sometime two. A 3/3 or a 7/7 are almost like an emotional respond. So, if I can get someone emotionally involved with my photo, I am OK. Feedbacks in a form of a comment or critique would be excellent.

[rbanfield]

Still kinda new to photo.net but I'm already use to taking the good with the bad. cool thing the good is way out in front. nice thing is the constructive comments that I get. hopefully makes me more aware on the next shoot. I shot this one photo and the first comment just slammed it. But the next comment was totally the opposite and came with suggestions on cropping and composition. any questions which one I paid attention to?

[giuseppe circhetta]

I would oblige people giving ratings lower than or equal to 4 to leave a comment by a web form projected to do so.

[metronomestudioslv]

The Fix is simple! These 3/3 raters are either haters, or just lazy! So, every time a 3 rating is given it should require that a comment be made with a minimum character count. If you give a rating like that, obviously you must have some constructive critisism; if not why are you rating images in the first place?

 

Or... Every rating should include the name of the rater, so everyone will know who the hater is ;) lol, then we can all point and laugh.

 

It really is strange, all of the best images on photo.net have one or two 3/3's. The question is, how do these blind people use a computer anyway?

 

;)

[fredmerci]

Hi all. It's very simple, no more anonymous critique. It's to easy to literally break the work of somebody in one second. This is what I think. Best regards. Frederic

[roger_gauthier1]

Nothing to do with distribution, so sorry. Everything to do with hate however. Those 3-3

are either given by robots or by a few haters hitting all the pictures they can with 3-3.

 

Proof is simple: every picture gets them in a few secs or mins.

 

I don't buy they argument that a picture should be looked at in a few seconds like in a

magazine. This is simply not art. This is like running through Le Louvres. Well,

photography IS an art. Pick your photos, look at them carefully, and then comment. This is

plain old courtesy between fellow photographer. If one is not ready to do so, he should

stay away from the critique section.

 

Personally, I prohibit any rating on the photos I post for critique. And each time, I laugh in

my beard, which is now quite something, at those anonymous haters.

 

Have fun!

 

RogerG, The Photographer Who Came From The Cold

[photovision]

3/3's and below should be accompanied by a critique as to why so low a rating. This should be mandatory. This could certinly be intregated into this program software. I don't mind getting an honest 3/3, but I would like to know why so that I can improve. Actually, we pay to be on here,it certainly isn't free. It takes time and effort to take, prepare, and post these photographs for others to view, so I would think that the administrators of this sight would really like for this kind of consideration to be shown to their subscribers. I think they do a really great job, but think in this area more could be done.I wouldn't mind even if the 3/3 or below raters remained anonymous Just don't leave me hanging as to "what did I do wrong".

[emre]

What are you going to do when people stop leaving ratings because the comment requirement put them off?

[roger_gauthier1]

- "What are you going to do when people stop leaving ratings because the comment

requirement put them off?"

The answer is dead simple: Nothing. I do not need anonymous rating. If anonymous raters

leave my pictures alone, I say, hmm, good riddance.

 

RogerG, The Photographer Who Came From The Cold

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>"3/3's and below should be accompanied by a critique as to why so low a rating. This should be mandatory."</i><P>

 

My. Such indignation. Perhaps you should review your own ratings history and reconsider that demand? ;-) ;-)<P>

Critiques can't be forced. If they are, then they are of no more value than no comment at all. Yes it would be nice if everyone did leave a critique. It would also be nice if everyone could accept those critiques (good or bad) gracefully. But the fact remains, and past experiences have demonstrated this very clearly, that many who post on photo.net can not accept *any* criticism at all. Most here (myself included) do not want to be bothered with the harassment and nasty emails that would surely follow.<P>

The photo.net administration has made it pretty clear in past discussions on this subject that critiques will not be mandatory (for multiple reasons) and that anonymous ratings are not going to go away (for obvious reasons). Josh has dropped many hints that improvements to the ratings system are planned, but those two areas will not be fundamentally changing. Everyone can continue to beat a dead horse if they wish, but it's not going make much of a difference.