Has anyone else been hit like this?

[JDMvW]

There are just some people who have to mark up walls, deface posters, or whatever. On eBay, there are a few people who go around marking all guides and reviews as unhelpful. What can you say, but one imagines either embittered losers or persons trying to up their own relative scores at the expense of others. Not good citizens, for sure.

[denise_gaudreault1]

My favorite picture in your portfolio is the wedding one,"BEHIND,BEHIND THE SCENE" it is

cheeky and expose the artificial aspect of weddings.

.....maybe you get some low rating because your photos are so beautiful like postcard

perfect I totally appreciate your portfolio......My taste lean towards conceptual images...it

keeps you reflecting for a bit longer that pure beauty...it is probably the darker side of

existentialism running in my veins.

You should be proud of yourself and continue taking images of what interest you, I am

sure that you have ,rightfully so, a lot of fans of your work...

I never give low rating I dont want to offend anyone I just click on the next photos . I rate

high to what I consider interresting images usually great originality content.

Keep on the good work and have fun with it...

 

denise, victoria.british columbia

[m_barbu1]

It amazes me to see how many people 'fess up to not rating photos any more. Maybe if we all kept rating, the "bogus" ratings would be drowned out by the accurate ones?

[hanna_cowpe]

Fred, regarding the question of how anonymous ratings can appear some time after an image has left the queue, I believe ratings given by new members are not logged until they have been checked out. This is stated in the 'details' of the ratings.

[Norma Desmond]

Hanna, the ratings of new members do immediately show up in the box on your rating details

page. They don't get counted in your photo's total or average ratings until they have been

checked out. They would not suddenly appear days later. They would have appeared, but not

been included in the tally, until later.

[shadow-island]

Pastor, trust me when I say todays system on PN is much, much better than it was three years ago. I'm sure there are Sunday's you walk out of the church and pump your hands to the heavens because you delviered a lights out sermon. Yet other's you where disappointed, but the message got through. Its no diffrent here. Timing of post, image appeal, orginality and presentation. No matter what you do, some will like it, other's won't. I know it's dis-hearting when you know you've got a good image and most rate as such, yet, those few just are not in tune with your message or delivery. Keep shooting my friend. Michael

[nicolerenee]

Pastor, maybe it all comes down to the fact that you just cant make everybody happy all the time. No system will function perfectly.

 

It might help to pay less attention to the anonymous ratings and more to the comments/critiques and direct ratings so you can follow up with someone if you dont understand a rating they've given. Personally, I've noticed that my direct ratings average is higher than my anonymous average.

[jgalyon]

Dan: My comments were by in large tongue in cheek. Yet, the reality is that honest critique can invite retaliation and/or indignant responses with the slightest criticism...from "some" photographers. Those who can't seem to resist retaliation will find a photo, or two, or more...and mark them 3/3 and if they do so, their name pops up. Not exactly sure what the "uh what?" meant...not offended, just confused. I find it commendable that you find those "botched" photos and rate them regularly...I'm making a conscious attempt to do so myself. I love looking at good photos and giving out high ratings to those who I feel truly deserve them...but I feel an obligation to rate the "not so good" and/or mediocre photos as well...with the intent (as I am certain it is your intent...) to be helpful. One thing that growing up being involved in athletics taught me was that if I constantly played (tennis for example) against someone with the same or lower skill level as myself was minimally helpful in increasing my own skills. But playing against someone much better than myself and getting pounded into the ground day after day was when I began to see a rapid improvement in my game. We could all do with a good "pounding", as long of course...that it is given to help and not to degrade the photographer or his/her work. Praise is wonderful...but does little to make us better photographers.

[jgalyon]

P.S. please forgive the typos and the slightly lost train of thought...it's late, i'm worn out and barely coherent :)

[karl.jahr]

There is a flip side to this: I recently noted one named member who rated every picture in the critique forum as 6/6. This happened several days in the last two weeks. His stats show he rated more than 10,000 pictures, 9000+ at 6 and 400+ at 7. That's even worse for the entire rating system than someone rating an individual's postings a 3/3.

[m_barbu1]

Is it? That just changes the curve. And equally.

[hugh_hill]

Dear Chris,

 

As we all know there is good and bad in the world, but also there to is the indifference too, and I for one can say that I have had my share of low raters (why even tonight I got 2 x 2/2?s & ?2 x 3/3?s that I ended up deleting the picture as I t must have been bad)

But I don't think they are haters just indifferent to my way of shooting.

I perused through your gallery and must say there are many a fine image there and I can see why most people like them because ?in my opinion? they are good!

But! For different horses there are of course different riders and no two will be the same or ride the same.

What I am trying to say is that yes there are those who go around messing with the ratings but not many, and I think that they target as much as they can and are not necessarily targeting anyone in particular.

I respect diversity and even enjoy looking at as many different styles as possible but a bad picture to me is one that say's nothing, badly composed, blurred, and with little thought put into its execution but still I no longer rate or give critic to anyone below a 4 and then it has to be most of the above.

Rise above it and if it ever gets to you again think of poor job.

 

 

Sincere regards

 

 

 

Hugh

 

 

I enclosed the picture that I had to delete this evening as I thought it must have been bad to have recieved such low marks, but I accept it as it was not from one person but four.<div></div>

[jgalyon]

Karl...I know exactly who you're speaking of and brought up the subject in this forum a few weeks ago. I didn't name this person, but he evidently found the thread...or more likely, one of his "mate rate" buddies let him know someone was on to him...and suddenly I no longer hear from him. Perhaps people like that do "balance" the 3/3 guys, but I don't want ratings I don't deserve and would assume that most of us feel the same. At the time the guy was only at a little over 7,000 photos he'd rated ...with a little over 7,000 6/6 ratings...

[hjoseph7]

It might be that your pictures did not strike an emotional cord in some of the viewers. No pun intended, but I once showed my own mother(and her friends) a stack of pictures of beautiful scenery, and she/they leafed through them faster than I can write this post, but when she saw a picture with a familiar face, she stopped and said "this is a nice picture !". For those of us who are involved in photography it is very easy to determine whether a picture is technically good as yours are or not. However, other people have different tastes. It's the same thing with Art, some people like me detest Modern Art, while others find it fascinating.

[johnoberry]

Chris,

 

As a new member to Photo.net, I just want to chime in on this subject. I know I am preaching (pun intended) to the choir. And, far be it for me to beat a dead horse. But it truly is sad to see a wonderful forum ruined by a few disgruntle, lonely souls who are so unhappy with their own life that they must drag others down with them.

 

I wish there was a easy solution to deal with these folk. I, myself joined photo.net because I saw a chance to learn from all you wonderful people.

 

For me this is a new and exciting experience for me, and I wait for like a expectant child for the rating and responses to the images I post.

 

I have a couple of photos I posted I thought would get 3's. I posted them because I wanted critical feedback as a way to learn.

 

Yesterday, I got the 3/3 on a photo that I know was not deserving of that rating. I was very peeved until I received some comments and instruction from a couple of members (TY.. Hanna and Darrel)

 

I started thinking about abuse I had seen on other (non-photo)sites, "Trolls" as they are referred to inciting pointless debate or "bombing" other's work with bad review/ratings. Several sites prohibited non-members from voting, others restricted comments unless you were signed in, and one site did not post any review until it was reviewed by the admin/mod.

 

I really hate to see the abuse, but at what price do we pay to curb it.

 

I for one do not rate photos yet. I don't know that I have mastered my own. But if I was to take the time to give a 3/3, I would have the decency to explain why I gave the rating.

 

Well... that was my point of view, my rant, and my ramble for the day.

 

Hang in there folks, illegitimi non carborundum! And to the folks that spam the ratings, Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris

[phule]

Why do people base their self worth on 2 numbers from a website?

[johnoberry]

Rob,

 

It is not so much that one bases self worth from the numbers, as it is that we are dishearten by the fact that this great tool for helping us to further own passion for photography is being intentionally corrupted. Like any tool, you do not want to get a faulty result. If one truly dislike a photo, then so be the result. But, if someone is just tossing numbers around, it is upsetting and disrupted to the community as a whole. I would feel the same if I was receiving all 7/7s.

[phule]

<<It is not so much that one bases self worth from the numbers, as it is that we are dishearten by the fact that this great tool for helping us to further own passion for photography is being intentionally corrupted>>

 

This is a completely false premise and the source of all problems with the rating system on photo.net. 2 numbers are not a "great tool." 2 numbers are meaningless. 2 numbers serve as nothing more than ego stroking or ego crushing to people not smart enough to realize how absurd the whole idea is in the first place.

 

The rating system serves no purpose other than to feed the addiction of those who believe their work can be valued and judged on the basis of said numbers.

 

The sooner people realize how unproductive it is to spend any time worrying about what ratings they received, the sooner they can get back to the real task at hand: photography.

[uk_wanderer]

I just came back to the site after many months away. The rating system has always been abused. I paid for more attention to the comments than the low scores. I like what I like.......... Your spread of work was one of the first things I came back to see. Thank You for inspiring me.

[James G. Dainis]

My understanding is that threads in the Casual Conversations forum disappear into the ether after a few days. I have nothing against this thread but am curious as to why it is still here.