monelle Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Identity is shown for person leaving comment, but hidden for person leaving rating? Is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zackojones Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Yes for anonymous ratings. If a member is logged in and leaves a rating you should be able to see that rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Ratings given via the "Rate Photos" queue (under the SHARING tab at the top of every page) are anonymous. But they are not anonymous to the administrators. The identity associated with each and EVERY rating, anonymous or public, is stored in the photo.net database (you must be a member and you must be logged in to leave ANY rating). Ratings given by members who go directly to your Gallery page and rate a photo from there, and/or leave a comment, are public. Comments left during the "Rate Photos" queue are also public, but the rating (if any) associated with that comment would remain anonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Stay on topic, please; thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgalyon Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 stay on topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgalyon Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Serious, respectful question: are you a Photo.net monitor Ken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prasant Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Well, I have noticed that at times I receive a rating which is non-anonymous, but when I go to the profile of the person who left the rating, and rate a photograph there, the original rating left by that person on my critique request becomes anonymous. Strange ! For example, yesterday I received a 3/3 rating with no explanation, on one of my pics. I clicked on the person's profile, saw the picture he had put up for a critique, and promptly returned the '3/3 with no explanation' in kind. And when I came back to my picture, that person's name was no longer there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 <i>For example, yesterday I received a 3/3 rating with no explanation, on one of my pics. I clicked on the person's profile, saw the picture he had put up for a critique, and promptly returned the '3/3 with no explanation' in kind. </i><P> That's exactly the kind of abuse that brought about the switch to anonymous ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prasant Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Mike, why would that call for a switch to anonymous ratings? I am all for harsh, hard hitting criticism. That is exactly what I expect to receive when I put up a picture for critique. But receiving a 3/3, that too from a newbie photographer, who by his own admission is only three weeks old into the photography world, is not only disheartening, but also enraging. Infact, it's my opinion that in the Photo Critique forum, anyone rating 3/3 or below must put in a reason for the rating. We are all just trying to learn on the forum, isnt it? Why should the learning experience be hampered by a 3/3 Hit-n-run spree then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeseymour Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Surely the real answer is to wait till you have a fair number of ratings to see what the average is, before deciding what others in general think of your image(s), some people may love it others loath it, and some just pass it over. Also the length of time over which the rating builds up should give some idea of how often it is rated rather than passed over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Most people who upload images or rate have little interest in teaching or learning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 <i>Mike, why would that call for a switch to anonymous ratings? </i><P> Giving someone ratings based on the ratings that they have given you instead of the quality of their photos led to serious problems with mate rating (people giving one another lots of 7/7s so they could be top-rated) and revenge ratings (the kind of abuse you're practicing).<P> <i> Infact, it's my opinion that in the Photo Critique forum, anyone rating 3/3 or below must put in a reason for the rating.</i><P> Why? Why exactly should people be obligated to supply reasons for a below average rating? Wouldn't it be more valuable to get feedback about what makes an image so successful from people who give 6s and 7s? In any case, in the past, people were required to give reasons with very high and very low ratings. This resulted in two things: lots of worthless comments ("Great!" "Sucks!"), and lots of flame wars because people were even more upset by the explanations than by the ratings alone.<P> <i>We are all just trying to learn on the forum, isnt it? Why should the learning experience be hampered by a 3/3 Hit-n-run spree then? </i><P> Making people afraid to give low ratings doesn't improve "the learning experience." If you can't accept the idea that a random stranger thinks your photos are below average, you should limit your "critics" to family and friends.<P> <i>I am all for harsh, hard hitting criticism.</i><P> Alright, then. I think the 3/3 rating on your "Zippo" photo is completely justified, and I'm utterly baffled that anyone would give it a 7/7. I've seen that kind of razor-thin plane of focus shot about 50,000 times, but most of those times the subjects were more interesting, the lighting better complemented the form of the subject, and the printing wasn't completely flat and lifeless. I suspect I've put more thought into this critique than you did into the execution of that shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monelle Posted April 29, 2007 Author Share Posted April 29, 2007 Thank you, John, I appreciate your support. I did my best to ask my question in the proper category (I thought it was Administration, but I don't see that one now). I received an email saying my thread had been recategorized--no explanation as to from where, to where, or why. So I have no clue what I did to deserve Ken's curt response. As to ratings, I tend to think they should not be anonymous, but I could be wrong. What I do find arbitrary is one rating for originality and one for aesthetics, with the further constraint that you must use both. So if you find a photo particularly beautiful but not particularly original, you can't honestly leave only your positive feedback. I would like to be able to leave a high rating without being limited this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monelle Posted April 29, 2007 Author Share Posted April 29, 2007 Thank you, Michael, for taking the time to give me a very complete and detailed answer. I appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 "So I have no clue what I did to deserve Ken's curt response..." Because you originally posted your question in the Digital Cameras forum, that's why and my patience was paper thing yesterday ;). So, you're welcome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgalyon Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Damn...Mr.Dixon! What a perfectly on target response! Tit for tat ratings? That's for children...not adults. (by the way...I think I called you to task on anothe forum post tonight :)), but then I think you're the kind of person that appreciates hard hitting honesty. You gave the only explanation I've heard yet that reasonably accounts for the fact that "making" people state why they give low/high ratings just doesn't work. Seemed the perfect solution to me...along with non anonymity. Now that you've spoken...I can see the point well. I agree w/ something someone said here recently...throw away the threes and sevens and the average photographer will get a pretty fair picture of his actual skill level. cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangoldman Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Perhaps it could be set in your profile whether you want a comment with either low or high ratings. That way, those of being offended by a harsh critique (such as the one you provided), wont have to under go that 'punishment'. I personally prefer a critique such as the one you provided for it is a reason, its lets me know what i need to improve with a photo. A below average rating only leads to a dead end. Also, it is always nice to know if the person leaving the rating is worthy of actually supplying one by a) having a portfolio of photographs that demonstrate skill b) knowing the kinds of photos that a particular person likes. That way, if they only like nudes etc, then i can see why they gave me a low rating for my non nude photo... Also, if i may make one point though about your assement of the zippo lighter: You may have seen it many times, so mark originality low. The composition and lighting may not be perfect, but if it is properly exposed and sharp, it should get a 4, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 <i> if it is properly exposed and sharp, it should get a 4</i><P> A photo deserves an average rating simply because someone can center the subject in the viewfinder and push the shutter button on his autoexposure, autofocus camera? That's kind of like saying someone is an average driver because he can shift gears in a car with an automatic transmission.<P> Basic camera operation skills are not what separate good photos from bad photos. There are plenty of dismal, boring photos that are perfectly exposed and sharp. In my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangoldman Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Therefore they are average? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacob_brown Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 If dismal photos are average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now