I am removing bogus accounts tonight...ratings will be dropping.

[onlocation]

Interesting to be informed that you intend to be doing this 3 days after you had done

[joshroot]

Andrew, I am not sure what you are referring to with your remark. Bogus ratings are removed frequently and without notice. As I have stated, the only reason that I posted about this series of removals is that I figured removing 100,000 ratings would cause some amount of alarm. And I wanted to limit the amount of anguish and email that I would have to deal with.

 

If you noticed missing ratings from 3 days ago, it is likely that another one of the admin staff removed some ratings at that time. However, it was not me.

[davidmccracken]

I understand what you say but you miss my point. Numbers mean nothing. I submit my photos for critique not rating. YES! I could submit them for critique only. My suggestion is only a suggestion. It would certainly discourage the people who hand out ratings just because they feel they can. I am trying to encourage critiques since that is why I submit my photos for critique.

[jgalyon]

Josh, I'm new here but think I understand the "bogus accounts" thing. Question: in a post I read earlier tonight someone remarked about a member who has posted approx. 10,000 ratings,giving over 9,000 6/6 ratings and nearly a thousand 7/7 ratings. I've had an "experience" with this person and after bringing up this "topic" w/o mentioning the names...the inordinately high marks I was given by him ceased. I don't need "bogus", high ratings and found that a little "self-policing" (at least in this case) can go a long way. But I must add that it was simply amazing how many people apparently knew who I was speaking of and proceeded to take up for the guy. Back to the question...does administration deal with such individuals who abuse in this way?

[joshroot]

John, you should pass any reports of ratings abuse to me or to abuse@photo.net.

[jgalyon]

"Numbers mean nothing. I submit my photos for critique not rating. YES! I could submit them for critique only."

 

Your comment is a bit confusing. If numbers "mean nothing"...not only "could" you submit you photos for critique, not rating...why don't you? To some people ratings ARE important. Evidently P.Net feels they remain important or I'd assume they do away with them. Must be that the majority of our members feel they're important or I'm sure the "numbers" would have been done away w/ long ago. Howeve, I do agree that IMHO comments/true critique are by far the most important aspect of it all and feel it sad that they are in such short supply. Personally, almost w/o exception...if I rate a photo I provide an accompanying critique. Sometimes my comments are brief...sometimes extensive, but I feel that if I don't have the time to do so, perhaps I just shouldn't rate. For me it's akin to believing that if I can't afford to leave my server a decent tip...then I really can't afford to eat out.

[jgalyon]

p.s. - thanks Josh for cluing us in and for your efforts to address this issue!

[rbanfield]

Way to go..appreciate the e-mail back. being relatively new to PN I appreciate the efforts made on our behalf for some true ratings. keep up the good work.

[john falkenstine]

I have had detailed suggestions in the past about installation of a software module that simply looks for abberant accounts based on abnormal ratings statistics/patterns including one party who now has over 40,000 6/6 ratings. Those accounts who rate excessively in one or more categories would be subject to "smoothing" or blocking of the account. This module would have taken care the bogus accounts as well. However, this is a decent step in the right direction.

[bob_belanger]

I am totally in favor of doing anything to eliminate the "Bogus" ratings. I am a relatively new member and have seen these "bogus" ratings hit my otherwise less than note-worthy shots. It's kind of flattering to see a bunch of 7/7's show up. However, if they are not based on the merrits of the actual image, then all they do is cause other problems. I have seen these 7/7's come and then in some short time after, they're followed by "correction", in the form of 3/3's. In either case the ratings are not based on merrit. I try not to get swayed one way or the other by the ratings on any photo, but this is why I signed up. I want to have my shots judged, feedback in the form of critique is preferrable but most people don't leave any comments so I rely a bit on the ratings to at least let me know if I'm headed in the right direction. It's hard for me to judge my own growth and improvement and so I post and hope that the community within PN is honest and fair. I have been fortuante that some very talented people have shown some interest in helping me and for that I am greatful. And, I thank the administrators for taking any actions necessary to try to clean up any abusive behavior... Cheers.

[elcock]

Great, thanks, Josh! I was wondering why my picture got such high ratings. It was exciting, but I'm in high school and I don't need any false feedback at this point.

[harmen vermeulen]

Ahh, first time in the forum, and the first topic answers my question. Not a great photo of mine got a lot of 7/7's, and I was really wondering why. Just noticed that around 15 votes were missing, but I now know the reason.

 

Why would anyone rate extremely high or low, just to influence the top lists? Very strange behaviour if you ask me. Probably the next question is asked a lot allready, but: why is it possible to rate anonymous? Being anonymous may cause people to rate in extremes easier. Like: ,, I kinda like this one, 7/7", or vice versa). When I post a picture, and I really know it does not suck (you just know with some pics ;-) ), it's really frustrating to see the first 5 votes to be 3/3's. I think that a lot of the people who visit this site like to manipulate, but hey, that's just a guess of course. Maybe some of the pics I love truly suck big time.

 

Is it an idea if people who like to rate pics have to register and that voting is not anonymous anymore?

 

Cheers,

 

Harmen

[glenwoodsherry]

Josh,

 

Thanks for dropping into the quicksand with both feet; as they say in the Old Country: "It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it".

 

I have been posting for only a short time,but several things soon became apparent to me: One, within minutes of posting, 3/3s would start popping up like weeds. Then, after a couple of hours, I would start seeing 4/4s and 5/5s; by the next day 6/6s and some 7/7s would appear. So, how is it possible for the same image to be considered 3/3 the same time it is considered a 7/7?

 

Also, with one (well deserved, I must say!) exception, all the higher ratings came from named members, and all of the quickly posted low ratings came from anonymous raters. I love it when a named member rates one of my images; I go to their page, and review their portfolio, to give weight to their judgement of my work. And when they add a comment, I am in Nirvana! Their opinions mean alot to mean, even the negative ones, since, though I have been an artist for 30 years, I have been serious about my photo work for only a few years. I need their imput if I am to get better. (It will be a very, very long journey).

 

But anonymous ratings do nothing for me; you can collect all the 7/7s in the world from them, but what are you going to learn from them?

 

So why the anonymous ratings, if they do not inform or enlighten, and they are open to abuse?

 

Just a question from a newbie.

 

Many thanks,

 

Glenwood

[ingermargrete]

It`s absolutely great that you are removing BOGUS accounts from PN:)How they rated is more irrelevant, I think.

[Alex_Es]

Thanks for the good work, Josh. I expect that some ratings will increase, as a lot of the

bogus accounts downgrade good photographs in order to make the persons they are

promoting look better.

 

The joke is that there are no prizes for high ratings.

[joekonz]

I've been a PN member only since February, and hadn't really realized -- other than the almost-universial 3/3 problem -- anything out of the ordinary about the ratings until two weeks ago, when a somewhat good (IMHO) child-related photo, but probably not spectacular, that I submitted for critique got as many as 18 ratings in less than 24 hours. That had never happened before; not even close. Many of them were anonymous, and there were a few 7s in there, and I wondered about it ... but I also thought, "Hey, this one must have struck a chord, I guess." Within two days, the ratings volume on that same photo had dropped to eight. I was scratching my head; the fuzzy subtraction math totally befuddled me. Then just this past week, I encountered an equally baffling phenomenon when a photo I submitted fetched absolutely no ratings ... not even a dreaded 3/3 from Anonysaurus Rex. OK, so I rationalized that maybe it wasn't that attention-getting of an image, or perhaps PN software was malfunctioning (oh, how low we go to rationalize), but now that I've read through this thread, I think I better understand the "why" of it all. It certainly was my introduction to the fact that "bogus accounts" even existed. Naive, I am (say it like Yoda), I guess. In any event, I appreciate anything PN does to maintain this community as one of encouragement and constructive criticism, and outlet to view and appreciate fine art. So Josh, thank you.

[stephenfenech]

First and foremost, I must sincerely thank you Josh for taking the time to reply to my email which I posted several weeks ago after I noticed that several of my ratings were removed. Although, like many other photo.net members, I have no objection whatsoever to the removal of 'bogus accounts, I cannot but express my disappointment at the deletion of more ratings in the past couple of days. What I cannot understand is the fact that I haven't posted an image in well over a month and yet this situation has reoccurred.

 

Thank you once again for your time.