How does this work

[lusobrandane]

I posted an image and it already had two ratings by the time I had made my way

to the page - the almost inevitable 3/3 and a 4/4. The poor ratings don't really

concern me too much, because I have no respect for anonymous scores given

without any consideration (given the speed with which the rates were given).

What does confuse me is how an image with no views (zero, zilch, nada) can have

two instant ratings?

[Michael R Freeman]

As soon as you post a photo for ratings, it goes to the front of the ratings queue. So anyone currently rating photos at the same time as you uploaded it will usually see (and possibly rate) your photo almost immediately.

 

Views are only updated once per day, so it is perfectly normal that you would see ratings before the actual view count is updated.

 

Despite views to the contrary, there is no grand conspiracy going on here.

[lusobrandane]

Thanks, Michael.

 

I personally don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories myself.

 

Not caring what some unknown person may think of one of my images on the basis of a 2 second glance is not the same as thinking that they are out to get me :) Who knows, it is even possible that the image actually deserves a low score!

 

I was simply confused as to how I could get ratings before I got views!

 

Cheers.

[jgalyon]

I don't necessarily subscribe to a conspiracy theory either, but neither do I discount it. Yet I think it's hard to deny that it's not coincidence that it's suddenly 3s that appear randomly and not 4,5, 6, or 7s as soon as the photo is posted. I've monitored this at times and found that photos (of mine and of others) that eventually were rated between 5 and 7...initially got the same, immediate 3s. But cry out as you like sir, I have every confidence that P.net will allow these anonymous raters who never critique to continue. I'm new to the site and while I'm a novice and not "wowing" the site much less the world, I'm generally satisfied with my rating, i.e., think they are fair. But don't you think it odd that I've never been given a rating of three that had ANY explanation as to why they felt the photo was "below average". Out of 90+ ratings of "3" , not ONE SINGLE comment...and ALL, repeat ALL of the 3s were given by anonymous raters. Tha'ts the part that really pisses me.

[Brian]

<P>John, the site has a fairly <I>laissez faire</I> attitude as regards regulations, which makes it easy and pleasant to use for most of us who treat it honestly and sensibly. But it also leaves the door open for people who want to do silly pointless things like anonymously rating every photo a '3'.</P>