Ratings encouyrig to bash or not

[dnf-style]

Probably I'm number 1hundredsoandso to open this threath but I just got proof

from what I always thought.

I posted one of my best ever, got all 7,s and yess came up in postion 3 of last

3 days with the following 4 hours update.

As soon as that happened 3's 4's and 5's where handed out like cookies by

anonomous voters.

 

My question is why are these ononomous votes the standard for displaying the top

photo's.

Why are people who do not show who they are because the know the hand out low

ratings only to keep up their own pics given so much power?

 

This only encourages to vote low and anonomous doesn't it?

 

I can't believe photo.net does not know this is happening or does not know this

is certain to happen.

 

Frenk and Danielle

[donreid]

Well, you're definately not the first to ask this question. However, pretty soon you will wish you didn't. No good answer will come of it. Anonymous ratings are a mix of bots, people with too much time on their hands, people who are voting friends up, or sometimes, an honest critique without comment. As long as I have been a member here, this has been an issue. Problem is, there is no good solution.

[dnf-style]

I understand and agree that their is not any good rating system that is not up for abuse.

However what I do not understand is that Phot.net has the anonomous as a default in their top photo's section.

This way, I feel that, photo.net doesn't feel any need to disencourage this behaviour.

By the way, not allowing anonomous voting would certainly improve (not solve) the rating system, don't you agree?

[johncrosley]

I am a private Photo.net member and do NOT speak for the Administration.

 

There were far greater problems with the rating system before its present configuration; this is a compromise system that arose because of great problems with ratings when they were not anonymous.

 

The problems that arose were manifold.

 

Some programmer (or programmers) unleashed ratings bots on the system, rating certain things high/low or randomly. In one instance, bot(s) were high rating every nude photo and nothing else, in what appeared to be an attempt to force the Administration to get rid of the nude category and display of nudes.

 

One result was that new measures were put into place regarding 'new' accounts, and certain other measure which never were much disclosed also were put into place.

 

Under the older, non-anonymous, system, there were continued complaints of members vs. members, upset that certain people were 'low raters' and certain others were rating all their 'friends' highly and suspicions that may have been true that certain other people were grouped together to attach low rates to 'non-friends' who had competing photos.

 

That was relatively easy where all the raters' identities were known and/or knowable.

 

Even today, I think, under the 'anonymous' system, if someone's rating of your photo places it on their 'highest-rated photos of others' list, it appears to lose its anonymity.

 

The previous Administration was nearly the stage of pulling out its (his) hair because of so many upset people over the ratings sytem being 'non-anonymous' with various sorts of rancor preventing the efficient running of the site and taking away previous manpower (personpower) resources.

 

The result was 'anonymous ratings' which were instituted as an 'experiment' and no guarantee they would forever be 'anonymous' but the suggestion was made some day or certain days or even just one time, the ratings would be revealed (perhaps that was intended to ensure that people's rating behavior might be known by fellow members in the future).

 

That has not happened. Yet.

 

The Administration and its software undeniably know who rates who for what. The old system was based on a scale of 1-7, and some people dished out the ones and twos for inexplicable reasons and caused much rancor with fellow members (who knew who was doing that behavior)

 

The rating system has been reset at a range of 3 (lowest) to 7(highest) as it appears few photos that appeared to ever justify a rating of 1 or 2.

 

It also made the membership happier, as one 'bad' rating no longer could sink somebody's photo 'ship', if everybody else thought it was a top-rated photo. (Work it out statistically: give a hypothetical photo 10 6s and one 1 and see what the results are - one unwise rating or vindictive rating (or just an anti-nude rating or anti somethign else rating of a '1' could spell ratings disaster, and gave the low-rating member enormous power).

 

The new '3' to '7' system tempers that somewhat.

 

When this Administration was new, the suggestion was made that perhaps ALL ratings would be made 'anonymous', and I haven't kept up with the scuttlebut to see if that's the Admin's current thinking or not, as it/(he) reworks the site and the software.

 

One change has been a new TRP category of non-nudes to help protect those at work -- a change that was resisted (for legal reasons) by the prior Administration. (no category can be more than the good faith of those members who post to the site and their own categorization of their work.)

 

If you think it's bad now, I can tell you that this site was forever full of rancor and bad feelings when ratings were public; the Adminstration has the abilty to know who is rating what and how, and the apparent willingness (silently) to take action if they think something's amiss.

 

Programs were apparently been written a while ago, to help identify the 'bots' and they have become less of a problem. That has been helped by the 'review' of new members' ratings, and not allowing those ratings to 'count' until after review.

 

Problems are endemic with any rating system and one of the biggest is that many members do not rate at all, especially if they're older members. Many members rate only one category or genre, or rate seldom, especially the 'older' members. This gives extraordinary power to those who do rate, and those people tend to be newer members, generally equpped to rate than the more experienced members. It's a problem, though, without a solution, I think.

 

The rating system is a compromise and always will be.

 

The institution of the new system appeared to temper mate-rating and behaviors that were similar . . . (designed to boost one member's scores and possibly denigrate others' scores).

 

This Administration is relatively silent about this issue, and maybe it is correct. I only respond because you seem upset at 'anonymous ratings' and suppose they are the source of ill that you perceive.

 

Those behavior appeared far worse when the source of each rating was known.

 

In any event, they're ratings given by people who are subject to all the foilbles of being human, and this site is open to ratings from any member, without known restriction or critiquing ability (except review of new members' ratings)

 

I've received thousands of ratings -- some fair and some unfair, but overall, you'll find that ratings will give you a good measure of popular taste of this population for your photographs, even if there is one or more objectionable rates. And a rating needn't be a 6 or a 7 to place it in 'bad faith'.

 

There are as many honest opinions as there are raters, and no formal training for rating or rating review board, so ratings are what the member says they are (subject to review of new members, mainly and other objectionable behavior on an ad hoc basis, usually by complaint).

 

I am NOT a spokesman, as I said before, so I am just one member, but I have some considerable experience about the history of the myriad ratings issues and complaints, and thought you might benefit from some history.

 

In the end, they're just numbers and not worth getting all that upset over.

 

If you identify what you think is suspicious or 'wrong' ratings behavior, simply explain in detail why and address your e-mail to abuse@photo.net, and you'll likely get a response.

 

I hope this helps.

 

John (Crosley)

member for 3+ years

[dnf-style]

Hey John,

 

WOW, not a spokesman? You defintely should be ;-)

Thanks for the very detailed reaction.

 

Participating in several forums Danielle and I are totally aware of the problems around rating and understand that you will NEVER be able to suit everyones needs and feels.

 

I'm not too upset about unfair ratings.

Please do not see my posting as a complaint towards Photo.net. I'm a non paying member so the question is if I even have any ground to be complaining. If that is what it seems then I should have chosen my words more carefully. No I totally understand the difficulty of the admins of photo.net

 

What I would like to know is the reason why the anonomous ratings are the default in the top photo ranking. Because that is what was so obvious with our last photo. It was placed in a weekend just after the latests update of the top photo section and the ratings it recieved in the first 4 hours placed it at the 3th position of the last 3 days default. Without putting it on a pedestal, it deserved to stand high in the ranking also (but that's a new discussion ;-) )

At least the photo did not deserve any 3's of 4's. But that is exactly what happened after the 4 hourly update of the top photo section.

 

I do understand that this is obvious to happen and you will never be able to grind that to a hold. But it is getting more value then it should by making this the default. Because everyone knows that voting anonomously now is the fastest way to get a top ranking out of the way. Since it is the default ranking everyone sees.

 

I really appreciate what Photo.net is doing and I probably should not have started this treath at all ;-)

[davidmccracken]

The site should offer the option to submit photos for rating only. It seems that ratings are what the owners of the site want. However, I am sure if there was an option to submit for rating only, very few would do it. We submit photos for critiques. It is critiques that should be encouraged not ratings.

[johncrosley]

Frank and Danielle,

 

If you feel you detect some pattern of 'abusive rating' then you should bring it to the attention of Abuse@photo.net where they are set up to handle such things. I am sure that some matters are under continual investigation, and if your problem isn't addressed immediately, that does not mean it has escaped attention.

 

But the presence of 3s and 4s is not indicative of anything more than a wide range of taste, and the fact that many raters view a photo for no more than a few seconds before rating it, and many have little photography experience, let alone training in critiquing and rating, so the numbers may sometime be devoid of meaning, although they may have great statistiscal significance.

 

I routinely gets rates from 3/3 to 6/7 or so on photographs; it's a vagary of the rating system. (P.S., I've had over 7,000 rates and used to 'take them seriously', but now use them as a general gauge and no more; the critiques are what you should encourage and read with great care, as the quality of a critique will often be revealed by how it's written, as opposed to ratings which are just 'numbers' (although with some great significance about your photo's visibility, for sure).

 

Please remember, a rank beginner's rate has just as much weight as that of the most highly-qualified member, and that is part of the source of the conundrum of ratings at all, but they do serve a useful purpose -- you just have to learn to live with the raters and their vagaries.

 

(I also would be suspicious these days of any photo that got all 7's under the anonymous rating system, as raters cloaked in anonymity generally seem to be pretty conservative, and, interestingly, some of the photos that are very highly-rated are seen by many experienced members as 'trite' or too easily fitting in a Photo.net 'mold' -- a 'mold' one hopes your photography isn't being fit into just to gain rates.

 

Mine isn't.

 

Certain categories seem at times to get higher rates -- experienced members often find that they can 'create' a niche for their personal style of photography and in return, raters learn about that style and the numbers (or at least the comments) follow suit.

 

Instead of getting riled, just put another media card into your camera and go take some photographs to express yourself -- create a true work of art and probably some will recognize it, even if others disdain it.

 

Remember, many great artists were scorned by their contemporaries.

 

In the end, it's not just about 'popular' taste, but about improving your skills; you will learn soon enough, if you haven't, about your personal 'artistic vision'.

 

Some of Photo.net's most valued members get rather 'ordinary' rates because of simple things, such as not choosing the most 'popular' style of photography, or a style for instance that might be controversial and thus down-rated by some just for that.

 

After you are very secure in the value of what you produce, the rates will take on marginal meaning . . . and then I invite you to look back at this post and see if it doesn't state things correctly.

 

Just because something is good, doesn't mean it will be popular, nor if it is popular does that mean it's good, although there certainly is some cross-over between 'goodness' and 'popularity'.

 

Also, Photo.net involves viewing photos first in thumbnail, and that creates a bias for photos that show well enough in thumbnail even to attract ratings interest; which is not a very reliable indicator always of finding the best photography, and the same may be said for exposition of photos by a computer screen and the differences that might arise if the same photos were viewed in a gallery or museum setting.

 

Just food for thought.

 

Enjoy shooting; in the end its about personal satisfaction, not scores.

 

John (Crosley)