Rating System

[scooter0071]

I have been a "Guest Account" for some time now and I am interested in becoming

a paying member with one reservation. My main goal by becoming a paying member

is to use others opinions to improve my photos. It took almost no time at all

for me to first hand find the 3/3 offenders. Now if my photo deserves a 3/3 I

have no issue. The problem is the same photo that gets the 3/3 will get a 6/6

from someone willing to sign in and put their name with it. And this seems very

consistent. I would like to see the rating system so that the ratings that count

are the ones that someone is willing to "sign" their name to. Even if its a

"Guest" account as long as they are required to sign in to rate the photos I

think the system would be more consistent. I think the "Top Photos" also should

only use the rating of signed in users. Please provide me with some feedback on

this to let me know if this is something that is worth trying or has been tried.

I will more than likely still become a member very soon either way but I wanted

to get this "off my chest" before I went forward.

 

Thank you very much for your time.

 

Bill Kalmbach

[yankfan]

Don't get frustrated, because the rating system is what it is and will never change. Post for critique only.

[mike dixon]

<i>Please provide me with some feedback on this to let me know if this is something that is worth trying or has been tried. </i><P>

In the past, there were no anonymous ratings, and non-anonymous ratings were used for calculating the default top-rated photos views. One of the reasons that anonymous ratings were introduced and used for determining the default view of the TRP was that a relatively-small group of "mate raters" dominated the TRP. People would give 7/7 ratings to their friends, and their friends would return the favor. Positions in the TRP were gained by handing out as many 7/7 ratings and mindless compliments as possible, not by demonstrating any photographic talent.<P>

Another reason for the introduction of anonymous ratings was to get rid of "revenge ratings." It wasn't uncommon for people to retaliate for ratings they didn't like (e.g. someone gave them a 5 instead of 7) by going to the "offender's" portfolio and giving low ratings to all their photos.

[caincaptures]

I started out with the same frustration. I soon realized as Mark has mentioned, it is there more to protect you, rather than go against you. The 3/3's will fade after the 1st hits when you post a picture.

[les]

"It wasn't uncommon for people to retaliate for ratings they didn't like..."

 

Oh, c'mon, this should constitute a case for kicking such a person out of the site. It is no excuse to introduce anonymous ratings which open the door wide for anyone willing to abuse it.

 

OK, I will not say anything more (somehow, every time I express an honest opinion on this - an other - subjects, the post gets deleted...).

 

So, now I am running scared and you will not hear from me anything else but ideologically correct statements :)

[mike dixon]

<i> Oh, c'mon, this should constitute a case for kicking such a person out of the site.</i><P>

It was. And after they were kicked out, a moderator would have to go back and clean up all the damage that had been done (e.g. retaliatory ratings, flame wars in the photo comments, etc.). Despite the weekly complaints in the Feedback forum because people don't like getting 3/3 ratings without an explanation (or the ability to demand an explanation), the amount of actual ratings <b>abuse</b> is far less than it used to be.<P>

<i> OK, I will not say anything more (somehow, every time I express an honest opinion on this - an other - subjects, the post gets deleted...).<br>

So, now I am running scared and you will not hear from me anything else but ideologically correct statements :)</i><P>

Posts gets deleted for violating the Terms of Use. Most deletions are for personal attacks, for trolling, for spamming, or for people trying to derail topics. If, for example, someone tries to make a thread about his personal political views and continues to do so even after being warned by moderators to stick to the topic of the thread, he shouldn't be surprised if his posts are deleted and he's suspended.

[les]

"Most deletions are for personal attacks, for trolling, for spamming, or for people trying to derail topics. If, for example, someone tries to make a thread about his personal political views..."

 

I am more than certain that I never attacked anyone personally (unless expressing different opinion is counted as such); trolling and spamming - also do not belong to the list of my sins; regarding political views - I never declared any (unless providing info related to some aspects of the topic is counted as such)...

 

But again - this is probably outside the scope of this thread (as defined by the original post). Honestly, I kind of feel that expressing opinions is, well...not advised. Really funny, since last time I had that feeling was in different time, different country, and having an opinion could put you in prison in no time at all...

[mike dixon]

<i>last time I had that feeling was in different time, different country, and having an opinion could put you in prison in no time at all... </i><P>

No need to worry about that. These days, all of photo.net's hired goons are too busy giving 3/3s to every photo.

[see_r]

Bill,

 

You don't need to be a paying member to benefit from many featuresof photo.net, ie feedback on posts, technical learning, etc. About 99% of the time I get useful answers questions about every aspect of photography, from film to cameras to shooting techniques to filters, to printing, mounting, and framing...pretty much all questions, literally. And in all of this I give answers as well as get them.

 

So keep learning, keep shooting, and as you improve, keep posting. If your work is good you will get good ratings, but realize that there is a lot of variability in the ratings and so you need to post enough to get them. I'm not saying your photos aren't good (they are, I looked) but we all can improve by studying on this site.

 

As for me, I ultimately joined out of gratitude for how much photo.net has helped my growth as a photographer, something that happened in spite of the shortcomings of photo.net.

 

Use the rating system for what it is worth.

[bobatkins]

"...Don't get frustrated, because the rating system is what it is and will never change..."

 

Be careful what you wish for.

[bruce levy]

How about a "check box" that says "disallow anonymous ratings" so we can have a choice per picture?

[jgalyon]

It seems so very odd that I came here to simply read the question & answers and found more than I expected...which I'll explain in a moment. First, the ratings. I won't go into my usual rant about my disgust for the system but I have a few things to say. Will it change? Just as others stated - probably not. I understand Mike's explanation for the anonymous ratings being instituted and I've heard the same from others. Seems to be the authentic reason. But seems to me that now people can still sabotage the ratings of others...but the difference is they can now do it under cover of anonymity. My opinion...drop the anonymous ratings, make people put their name w/ the rating and critique, and make it mandatory that if they rate a photo "below average" that they state why. Take away the ability for anyone that is not a paid subscriber to rate in any form or fashion. Take away the ability to rate a "recent photo" without even having to open the photo to get a true "view" of the shot. (and I promised I wouldn't go into my rant... :) Leszek: Funny you should bring the subject of having your posts/anwers deleted. I confronted someone who was needlessly rude and offensive to someone, they fired back, and next thing I know the entire post was deleted, only to reappear tonight with the answers of several people completely deleted. I'm certain it's within P.Net's discretion to do so...but talk about censorship. I admit that I overstepped the line a bit, but after having only been on the site for two months, I'm worn out with rude, nasty spirited, malicious individuals spewing their venom in the direction of good people just asking a question. I wouldn't have felt it out of line if the "elves" had e-mailed me a "warning" or whatever they hand out if you've been a bad boy or girl...but to simply pull the original comments and have the sanitized version re-posted has a spooky feel to it. I can't speak from the apparent personal experience that you have on this type of incident Leszek, but I've seen movies & documentaries and read many a book about it. Next people will disappear...so if you don't hear from me again, and my portfolio disappears...well, it's been fun! I think it's at the least, an inconsistent way to address such an issue in that the moderators think it's necessary to delete my comments when I was only defending someone, while I would wager good money that the offensive comments that sparked my remarks would have been left as they stood had I kept my mouth shut. Lastly, M. Dixon: love the personal pic, i.e., hand over mouth, lol... and your comments about P.Net's hired goons giving out 3/s...were you serious? I posed that concept once after talking w/ a friend who is a long-time member/ respected,accomplished photographer who has been monitoring this issue for several years and feels this is not only a viable explanation for the 3 phenomenon, but a likely one. He gave a long list of possible motivations and emphasized the obvious ease by which it could be accomplished. That's another subject for another day. Do you seriously consider this a possibility Mike? Guys, if you don't think this whole think is suspect and creepy enough, read Fred Goldsmith's post in the Casual Conversation Forum about the sudden decline of the 3/3 problem...apparently being replaced by a 4/4, 4/3, 3/4 attack strategy. It is being experienced widely by members in recent days. Not like the one or two 3/3s that appear immediately after a post...but a deluge of these ratings, rapid fire after the post. Fred is one of the most stable, respectable people on site...so if he sees something and is concerned...ya better listen.

[jgalyon]

Bruce...that would make too much sense.

[tholte]

John, The administration has been hinting at a new rating system. Here is what I hope it will be: A two tier system where posters can be in an anonymous rating system like now or a non-anonymous system like you and your band of brothers want. I will stick with the current system because it is more accurate and realistic, I don't mind 3/3's or 4/4's, in fact, I am rather proud of them. You can have your system and and all the 6/6's from your so-so friends and the 7/7's from your real good buddies. What ever transpires, it should be interesting. I always get a kick out of newbies complaining about the rating system. If the complainers ever put as much effort into improving their photos as they did about whining, they would probably become half-way decent image makers.

[alexb_paris]

yeah I agree if I don't get my 3/3(s) for a picture I submit for critique, I feel there is something missing

[kezia]

Bill, if I get 6 or 7 in a signed rating I assume it's someone who wants me to reciprocate with an equally high rating; if I get the usual two sets of 3s anonymously I assume it's someone who does that to thousands of photos in the hopes of raising their own position in the ratings game. It doesn't seem to matter how good or bad the photo is it gets some ratings at each end of the spectrum. The only ratings I take at all seriously are an anonymous high rating, or a low signed rating accompanied by a thoughtful critique, so I'm for keeping the current system in so far as I care about ratings at all. Just about every variation of the ratings rules has been tried and none works so I just ignore that aspect now. Some of my photos are unedited, unadjusted quick snaps for the benefit of illustrating something in particular to friends and family overseas, and these are unlikely to engage the imagination of anyone else (I have to submit everything for critique because I'm not a paying member), others are photos I would like seriously critiqued, but that doesn't happen, so I have to be content with learning from examining other people's photographs. When I first started posting here several years ago I was quite outspoken but never had a post deleted so I have no complaints on that score. I don't really know how one goes about getting more useful critiques. I can only suggest being selective in those photos that you yourself critique. Find several photographers whose work has something in common with yours and then try to feed them comments that you think they might find useful for a while - critiquing is a good learning exercise in itself and it's harder than you think! You might find some will eventually reciprocate, but you have to have something useful to say yourself; don't just throw out meaningless comments in the hope of getting a response, because the exchanging of meaningless 'bravos' loses its fascination very quickly, and it's probably better not to choose the superstars because they are in such demand already for their critiquing abilities. And don't ignore the other forums because they are full of useful information from good photographers who don't necessarily contribute to the photo critique forum.