chrisspracklen Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 It seems like 2 or 3 people have gone right through my portfolio in the past couple of months and rated almost every photo I've ever uplaoded with a 3/3, 3/4, or 4/4. I was already getting pretty fed up with every one of my NEW uploads getting hit like this, but this really is pretty pathetic! Okay, so they're just numbers, but what kind of mind do you have to have to want to do a thing like that?! Isn't it about time the administrators did something about such obviously hostile rating? Best regards to all fair-minded photo.net users, Chris Spracklen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgalyon Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I read your bio Chris and noticed that you're a pastor and a member since Jan., '06. I'm sure my now this is a phenomenon that you've observed ever since you became a member and have held your peace until now. I've just been on site a little over 3 months...2 of which I spent ranting to no avail about this matter. The only consolation is that it happens to the best and worst photographers alike. I've seen some of the most incredible photographs I've ever laid eyes on receive multiple 3/3s. Be prepared for an onslaught of people telling you that you're just whining, in effect...that you're an immature moron for paying attention to ratings, etc., etc. But I remain in your camp. If there is to be a ratings system, it should be as fair as is possible. The whole problems lies with the "top rated photos" deal...where people can take a micro-second glance at a small photo and rate it anonymously and without explanation. Correct that retarded part of the system and a lot of the problem would instantly go away. The way it is...mindless cowards can go on 3/3 sprees all day long...and many do...and there's nothing we can do about it. Pathetic if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timzeipekis Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 I've exhausted myself on this topic, so I'll keep it short and just say that I second John's response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucecahn Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Chris: I have just looked at the single photos in your portfolio and they are pretty good. I see no 2 or 3. They range from 4 to 7 in my opinion. I am a former pro photographer and art reviewer. So do not let it bother you at all. You are a good photographer. Best.--Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelging Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Chris , I will tell you that you have a very good portfolio, with a large selection of landscapes and portraits that are all good.I do not rate photos anymore ,but if I did, yours would not deserve 3/3's, and I know the difference between a good and a average photo.I found out a long time ago tha 50% of the people in the world like you for the same reason that the other 50% don't, if you change who you, are you just exchange 50%.I know you do not want to hear this but, you should not look to others to see if your photos are good or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Chris-- I'm not sure how older photos would get anonymous 3/3 or 3/4 rates? Once there out of the queue, which only takes about 24 hours, they can't be accessed (I think) for anonymous rates. So perhaps you are talking about named raters doing this. Either way, it sounds obviously abusive. You should send an email to abuse@photo.net and point out several of the photos you believe this has been done to. They will check into it and rectify it if they determine it is malicious. I have had several occasions on which to contact the abuse person (not for ratings issues but for other problems) and they have acted quickly and effectively. Good luck. --Fred We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 <i>"It seems like 2 or 3 people have gone right through my portfolio in the past couple of months and rated almost every photo I've ever uploaded with a 3/3, 3/4, or 4/4."</i><P> If 2 or 3 individuals have rated your entire portfolio in this manner, then I think you probably have a pretty good case for "ratings abuse". Report the individuals and whatever evidence you can gather to support your complaint to abuse@photo.net. If the administration determines that this (pathetic) behavior constitutes abuse (the pattern alone would suggest abuse to me), then they'll remove the ratings and may also take further action against the offenders. <P> Good luck, continue to share your art, and don't let losers like this bother you. As you say, in the end "they're just numbers". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Fabulous photos, I don't know why would somebody want to give you a 2 or a 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 A quick look through 10-12 of your photos and the ratings associated with them does not show any pattern of abuse by one or two specific users. All the low ratings I found were from what looked to be legit users who had just rated a few of your photos. Usually with a normal looking ratings spread. I did find a couple of people who have rated 70-100 of your photos 6/7 or so with few or no comments. But nobody ever wants those ratings deleted. Just the 3/3 or 3/4 with no comments. Though to be fair, those raters all looked to be legit as well. As was said, if you feel you have specific instances of abuse, send them to abuse@photo.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 A curator from the Art Institute of Chicago commented on how nice a photo was that was on display at my in-laws home. It bombed in a photoclub competition. Suck it up and move on. Most judges don`t know what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teethgator Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Forget the critiques. I went to your site and read the remarks-you are well respected my friend. I would bask in the glow of those nice remarks and forget about those few indivduals who like to give low marks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgalyon Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Pastor, here's as sure-fire method of at least knowing where a few 3/3s are coming from... Critique only the worst photographs on the site, especially taking note of the photographers who have exceedingly low marks for their work, and who give ratings even lower than their own to everyone else...including the very best photographers on site. All ya have to do is say that one of their photographs lacks sharp focus or that the exposure is off and they won't be able to resist giving you an immediate 3/3 on at least one shot...probably many. Isn't it ironic that those with the least skills/worst photographs are the ones who get totally bent out of shape with the least bit of criticism...and are the ones who become totally indignant and seem so surprised that someone would critique their work...in a Critique Forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will king Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Chris, this is probably the oldest topic on pnet. Don't take it personally. As John stated earlier, EVERYONE has been effected by the anonymous 3/3. I'm at the point where I would be suspicious if I didn't get a 3/3. The fact or the matter is, this is an internet site. People are anonymous and sometimes more annoying than in real life. All I can tell you is, if you pay too much attention to the numbers, than you will not enjoy this site. Pay more attention to the people who are nice enough to leave some comments on your work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 When people rate a photo low that you know in your heart and head is a good to great photo, it says more about their lack of photographic incite then yours. Don't worry about it, have a good laugh at their expense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Chris, I notice that approximately 5% of the ratings you've received have been 3s, and about 9% of the ratings you've given are 3s. I assume that the 3s that you've given out were based on your honest appraisal of what the images deserve. Why do you assume that the 3s you've received are the result of hostility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisspracklen Posted June 12, 2007 Author Share Posted June 12, 2007 I've been overwhelmed by the supportive feedback I've had on this question. Thank you all so much for your encouraging words ~ your answers have helped to restore my perspective on this issue. I'm probably a little over-sensitive about the whole ratings thing, after all, with photo's, (like all forms of art), "one man's meat is another man's poison". It's been good to get it off my chest, though, and thanks again to all those who've contributed responses ~ and especially to those who took the time to visit my portfolio. I really do appreciate it! Best regards, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 <P>Chris, on the one hand you regard 3s and 4s as "obviously hostile rating" and on the other hand, 9% of the ratings you have given to other photos are 3s.</P><P>I don't set much store by the ratings myself, but it seems like you are operating a double standard here.</P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjmeade Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Chris, I'll just take this as a chance to say that your work is of uniformly high quality Sadly, misanthropes are everywhere.Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjmeade Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Finger trouble! ! ! Didn't mean "high quality sadly", should have been "high quality. Sadly,". ;-) P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 <i> Chris, I'll just take this as a chance to say that your work is of uniformly high quality Sadly, misanthropes are everywhere. </i><P> While I'd agree that technical competence is evident throughout his portfolio, and that compositions, lighting, etc. are generally pleasing, every shot I looked at was entirely conventional (some might even say cliched). Nothing I saw distinguishes the work from similar fare from hundreds of other photographers. It strikes me as entirely possible (and not unreasonable) that people who have "overdosed" on landscapes could view many of his shots as average (or occasionally below average). Why attribute malicious motives to people whose tastes simply disagree with your own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisspracklen Posted June 12, 2007 Author Share Posted June 12, 2007 Brian, If only you could see the photo's I rated with 3's! I don't claim to be a brilliant photographer, but at least my images are sharp and reasonably well composed, etc. The only photo's to which I would ever have given a '3' are those that are technically very poor in pretty much all departments. If you can say that about any of my work then, fair enough, I'll go back to the drawing board. By the way, I no longer give 3's, but prefer not to rate such very poor images at all. Kind regards, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisspracklen Posted June 12, 2007 Author Share Posted June 12, 2007 Mike, Thanks for your comment, but when you consider the millions of photo's that are uploaded to sites like photo.net every day, (let alone the ones that aren't), how many can you honestly say are truly 'unconventional'? Kind regards, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangoldman Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 John said: Pastor, here's as sure-fire method of at least knowing where a few 3/3s are coming from... Critique only the worst photographs on the site, especially taking note of the photographers who have exceedingly low marks for their work, and who give ratings even lower than their own to everyone else...including the very best photographers on site. All ya have to do is say that one of their photographs lacks sharp focus or that the exposure is off and they won't be able to resist giving you an immediate 3/3 on at least one shot...probably many. Isn't it ironic that those with the least skills/worst photographs are the ones who get totally bent out of shape with the least bit of criticism...and are the ones who become totally indignant and seem so surprised that someone would critique their work...in a Critique Forum! uh... what? I make it my business to find some of the more technically botched photos on this site and critique them (easier to critique than average/good photos, usually)... This may explain some of my rating's then... Any photographer i feel has made a photo that is below average (of whose average i dont know, maybe mine? yet another flaw) i give them as thorough of a critique as i can. I usually try to give 2 or so a day, more if the opportunity permits. I always add to the end something to the extent of "i'll delete this comment if it offends you... sorry for sounding harsh... this is how it looks on my monitor... etc". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 <i> The only photo's to which I would ever have given a '3' are those that are technically very poor in pretty much all departments.</i><P> Not everyone evaluates photos on the basis of sharpness or conventional composition. I've seen plenty of dismal photos that are sharp, well-exposed, and conform to the rule of thirds and other guidelines.<p> <i> Thanks for your comment, but when you consider the millions of photo's that are uploaded to sites like photo.net every day, (let alone the ones that aren't), how many can you honestly say are truly 'unconventional'?</i><P> Relatively few. That doesn't mean that everyone has to accept that conventional photos are entitled to above-average ratings.<P> You still haven't answered my original question: Considering the percentage of below-average ratings you've given is about twice as high as the percentage you've received (and assuming you weren't being mean-spirited or hostile), why do you assume that the average and below-average ratings you've received were motivated by hostility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisspracklen Posted June 12, 2007 Author Share Posted June 12, 2007 Fair cop, Mike. I guess I was, (to a certain extent), jumping to conclusions. I'm probably over-sensitive in this area, but it does get to me when a high average rating is dramatically lowered by a single 3/3 or a couple of 4/4s. Thanks for being 'the voice of reason'. Kind regards, Chris 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