not so much the 3/3...

[nicolerenee]

So, I havent noticed so much of a 3/3 problem on my portfolio, (I've

deffinately got a few, I wont lie) but mostly 4/4's. Now I can accept that I'm

going to have quite a few average shots but almost anyone can snap enough and

get SOMETHING good, right? I submitted a photo and recieved a 4/4 rating

within seconds(it may have been a 4/4 but I'd hope someone would take the TIME

to actually LOOK before rating, like, maybe, longer than 2 seconds.)You'd

think there would be at least 1 shot above average, but no.

 

I made mistakes rating in the past, I'm sure most people have, but if I rate

anything these days I do in directly and try to comment as well...man it would

be nice to get something out of a 4/4. I dont mean to complain but you just

gotta vent sometimes. I try not to pay too much attention to ratings and

concentrate on comments and critiques instead and no system is going to be

perfect but MAN....you'd think I'd start improving after a while.

 

Alright, I'm done complaining and I feel better now.

[michaelging]

I did not rate any of your photos Nicole, but if its the 3 landscapes you are talking about, in my opinion they are worthy of a 4/4 rating. The photos have no depth to them,no use of composition, there is really no subject, and they are little more than I was here photos. I did leave a comment on a portrait you posted the other day, that was a very good photo,these are not anywhere near the quality of that photo. I think if you want people to spend more than 2 seconds looking at one of your photos, you need to make them more visually interesting. I hope you take this in the spirit it was intended, you have great potential,but if you are given high ratings for photos that do not deserve them then you will not get better.

[mendonphoto]

In my opinion, there is really only one useful benefit to posting photos for critique - to see how well liked the photos are. I think sometimes we get emotionally attached to pictures we have taken, and we are blind to their faults. If I post a photo and it gets ripped on the forum, maybe it's not such a good one, and I reconsider it and try to figure out what might be wrong with it.

 

I don't expect many helpful hints from the forum, though. Because of retaliation, people are now afraid to say negative things about photos, which is too bad. About the only reliable way I know of to learn from other members here is to find photos you like, try to figure them out, and ask questions about them.

[stp]

Nicole, I think Michael makes some excellent points. I sense that you are so in tune with

nature and with your surroundings, and you find these places so beautiful and interesting,

that you naturally want to capture them in a photograph and share them with others. But

it takes more that just being in a beautiful place, raising the camera to the eye, and

pressing the shutter. When you look through a viewfinder, you're seeing only a very small

part of what is interesting to you, and the sounds, smells, warmth, and other non-visual

parts of that place that may be such a big part of its attractiveness are gone. The viewer

has only those few things in the image to look at, and unless they are somewhat out of the

ordinary, the viewer probably won't understand the interest that you had and won't spend

much time with the image. You need to find the right composition, in the right light, that

makes a place special, outside the ordinary views that we generally have when we walk

through an area. As Aaron says, find photos that you like, spend some time with them,

identify the elements of the photo that make them attractive, and spend some time

reading comments (if any meaningful comments are given). I think you just have to look

deeper, especially when looking through the viewfinder.

[nicolerenee]

Michael, thanks for your honesty and no, it wasnt the landscapes which I expected werent going to get great ratings because I've never really taken them and was hoping I'd get some helpfull critiques. In fact I think I asked for some point blank.

 

I agree about the high ratings as well but I've recieved so little of those that I cant complain about it anyway ;)

Mostly I want to learn and grow and helpfull critiques move me along in that direction but 4/4 is just an "average" rating and it's so hard to learn anything from that. I know it's not what matters completely, its just frusterating.

I've had some photos that were rated pretty high by members who decided to rate directly but the average was drug down to (usually) somehwere between a 4.5 and 4.8 by the 4/4's. 'Course there were a few 3/3s but not nearly so many.

[jgalyon]

I think all the comments above are well intended...but Nicole didn't complain about receiving 4/4s...she complained about receiving no explanation for "why". You guys were gracious enough to explain (and in the case of Michael...quite bluntly but respectfully) the "why". I believe that she is upset with "rate recent photo" b--lls--t" where you can see a reduced size image and hit the 3/3 or 4/4 while talking on your cell phone, watching "Wired", and spilling beer on yourself. It should be harder to rate. You should have to "TAKE THE TIME AND LOOK"...as Nichole stated. but then realistically...we can't control that.

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>"I've had some photos that were <b>rated pretty high</b> by members who decided to rate directly but the average was drug down ..."</i><P>

 

While it is certainly not always the case (and I'm not in any way suggesting that it is for your photos) you do need to be aware that there are quite a few individuals here that like to "game the system" and give high direct rates (and praise) to just about any photo posted, in the hopes that you will reciprocate in kind and rate their photos highly. And some people just want to be nice - it's not in their nature to be critical. In that respect, you should view high 6/6 or 7/7 direct rates with the same suspicion as anonymous random 3/3 rates, especially if the bulk of your <b>anonymous</b> ratings for a particular image fall within the 4/4 and 5/5 range.

<P>

Unfortunately, as Aaron alluded to above, because of the very childish behavior of a few that spoil it for the majority, many people here are uncomfortable being really critical and pointing out the flaws in an average or poor photo that belongs to a person that they don't know. It's just not worth the aggravation, and nothing good (for them) will come out of the process. It's much easier on the blood pressure to just rate the image 4/4 ("Please try again") and move on. Despite the fact that it's called a <i>Critique Forum</i> a lot of people that post their photos here are looking for <i>praise</i>, not critical review. When they don't get that, they often react badly and retaliate. I have personally experienced that (as have many others) when I was a little too "honest" when giving comments to individuals that <b>specifically asked</b> for honest critiques. Turns out that they didn't really want to improve their craft or know what was wrong with their image. That's too bad (and kind of sad) but that's the reality of the situation.<p>

<i>"Mostly I want to learn and grow and helpful critiques move me along in that direction but 4/4 is just an "average" rating and it's so hard to learn anything from that."</i><P>

Sometimes "average" photos are just that, and often there's really not too much in the way of comments (other than "Please try again") that a rater can add to improve the photo. Sometimes a photo simply doesn't work and it doesn't invoke a response of <b>any kind</b> from the viewer. It's good that you want to learn to improve and that you are open to receiving critical (and hopefully helpful) comments, but it's unrealistic to expect comments or explanations to accompany the majority of your "average" ratings. It would be nice if that happened, but unfortunately it won't. Try to learn from the (helpful) comments that you do get, and don't get frustrated by those that you don't.<P>

<i>"I try not to pay too much attention to ratings and concentrate on comments and critiques instead and no system is going to be perfect but MAN....you'd think I'd start improving after a while."</i><P>

Keep practicing and shooting. You <b>will</b> improve. Eventually. Be patient. :-)<P>

The fact that you can accept that "I'm going to have quite a few average shots" means that you are already well ahead of the learning curve than quite a few here who submit photos for ratings and critique. And in the end, when you get to the point where most of your photos please <b>you</b>, unless you are a pro shooting for hire it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks. Enjoy the experience - it's a hobby for you, and it's supposed to be fun.

[john_h.1]

"Nicole didn't complain about receiving 4/4s...she complained about receiving no explanation for "why"."

 

No one ever complains about not getting the 'why' with higher ratings. Same in this thread. The whole 'its about the learning' thing rationale cited everytime seems gratuitous. Fess up everyone, its not all about the learning, ego is involved too.

 

If you really care about learning, form a circle of mixed level phtograghers who will provide in depth commentary about each other's work.

[jgalyon]

Actually, not true John. I complained about a continual flood of 6/6s I received from a particular individual and I no longer hear from the guy. At the time, over 7,000 critiques and over 7,000 "6/6" ratings. First of all, who the hell has time to rate that many photographs unless there's some personal gain to be had? Believe it or not...when I brought up the subject in this forum( without naming the person)...others immediately knew who I was speaking of and about half actually took up for the guy! Sure there's ego in all of us... but you can't just make some overly general, blanket statement and expect to be taken seriously. "Fess up everyone"...no offense, but speak for yourself.

[john_h.1]

Your case would be an extremely rare exception. You also cite a large amount of defenders for a rater who would be widely condemened if the ratings were lower. Your observation demonstrates the well known phenomenon that low ratings inspire many complaints and high ones do not. Also, the complaint in this thread wasn't even about a systematic rating scheme like you cite, it was about getting these rates at all.

 

So while you and maybe a tiny amount of others might complain about certain no comment high ratings, it is obvious that the overwhelming amount of complaints come from low ratings only. Somehow I do not believe you will dispute this overall trend.

[jgalyon]

You're correct John...unfortunately, I don't.

[tholte]

Nicole- Michael Ging, Stephan, Aaron and Michael Freeman are giving great information here, heed the advice and you will, in time, be a better photographer. You have only been here a few months so you really shouldn't expect the viewers to spend much time looking at your work, because, as the others have politely implied, it is average at best. You have recieved some high rates (non-anonomously) because of the reasons John H. has so accurately described. If you are tough and want to improve, you will be posting here a year from now and will be pleasantly surprised at how much you were able to improve. If high rates are the most important thing to you, you will quickly become dissillusioned and will find some other less demanding photo site, of which there are many. The best way to get comments that mean something is to email the photographers you admire and ask questions. Most will be more than happy to help.

[timzeipekis]

I have received some 6/6's and 7/7's in the past and frankly............I am appalled. Shame on you people! LOL

 

Free "Thank You's" to anyone who visits my portfolio and hits me with an honest assessment.

 

Cheap marketing ploy.........I know!

[stembaughphotography]

"If you really care about learning, form a circle of mixed level phtograghers who will provide in depth commentary about each other's work."

 

Isn't that what the the critique forum is supposed to be?

One of the problems with the rating system is that there are no standardized objective criteria to determine what a 3,4,5,6, and 7 ratings really should be.

[jgalyon]

and if there were...most would simply rate accordingly to what they "like"..regardless.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Improvement comes from constructive criticism and not because some anonymous person or even one of the speed raters hits your image (and you) with two meaningless numbers (tend to agree with David Stembaugh's assessment here). Whatever rating you receive, it will essentially leave you wondering. High direct ones: maybe just asking for you to leave the same? Low anonymous ones: really a below average image rated by a photographic genius or somebody that doesn't like that kind of image (I hate ...) or just a mean spirited 3/3 drive-by shooter?

Unfortunately, the only way you receive comments (and very few at that) is if you subject yourself to the rating game. The Critique-Only forum is not a place where your images receive a lot of attention, if any at all. Kudos if you can even find the ones that have been submitted for critique only ( <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/pc-recent-requests?rating_type=photocritique&topic_id=1481&subscriber_p=0&critique_p=1">here</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/pc-recent-requests?rating_type=photocritique&topic_id=1481&subscriber_p=1&critique_p=1">here</a>).

 

All what helped me to improve my photography came from helpful and constructive feedback by PN members who took the time to leave those thoughtful comments; some even took the time to download an image and uploaded an edited version, to demonstrate some post processing or give a sense of a better composition etc. (I have done likewise).

 

A high rating without a comment will leave you at least feel good, a low one without a comment as to why it was rated that way does not; none will actually help you get better. The former will make you believe you are already good and the latter doesn't tell you much more than that the person who rated didn't like it.

 

As to speed rating in "Rate Recent", here is a novel (?) idea: just don't count the ratings given if the rater did not take the time to look at the larger view!

[john_h.1]

"Isn't that what the the critique forum is supposed to be?"

 

Yes.

 

It doesn't work out that way though. Forming a group will result in more frequent detailed feedback.

[jgalyon]

Exactly Dieter...just don't count them! I suggested that anyone rating would not only have to open and view the larger version...and leave a comment. I was quickly told that this had been tried and without going in to the long version...wasn't successful. Oh well.

[nicolerenee]

Thanks to everyone who took the time to answer and give helpfull advice. I suppose I'm pretty naive when it comes to that kind of thing just supposing that people think the way I do. I try not to rate something (and havent in quite a while and not often) unless I have something helpfull to add and if I like a photo I try to give valid reasons why. I've also left comments for people when I saw something I thought could be improved, not just what I prefer or what caters to my taste.

 

John H, the reason I'm not asking questions about any of the higher ratings I recieved is because most of those who rated high left a comment as well telling me what they appreciated about the photo and most of those same people have also given me helpfull critiques on other photos telling me what could be improved and how to go about impoving it, so assuming that my not complaining about ratings that you may not deem merited or in Tim's case, deserved, may just come from lumping me in with the majority stereotype and not necessarily from my individual case.

 

Tim, if my photos are average at best, I would love for you to have a look at my portfolio and let me know what I can do to improve. I dont mind harsh critiques if they're honest and I can learn something from them.

 

No system is perfect...understood.

 

Not everyone will like everything I shoot...agreed.

 

It will take me a while to become proficient...of course.

 

But isnt everyone entitled to complain every now and then?

[Dieter Schaefer]

John, Bob Atkins mentioned this in an earlier post: "As has been said in the past, the ratings are as much (if not more) for the site as the users. It's a way the site can find and present the most popular images for display and it's also a way for users to find the "better" images (or at least the most popular images)."

 

As to being forced to leave a comment: it was also mentioned that it would be impossible to verify if actually a useful comment has been left. Some photo sites try to do that by looking for a certain number of words and even a sentence structure.

 

I think rating has nothing to do with the goal as published on the "About Us" page: "...strive to be the best peer-to-peer educational system for people who wish to become better photographers" and everything with the number of clicks and advertising money.

 

Discussions on how to improve the rating systems are abundant in these forums; they differ by so much that a rating system that satisfies everybody is bound to stay an illusion. It will always stay a game that people play and try to win, by whatever means possible.

[yankfan]

I gave up dealing with ratings altogether. They weren't worth the headache. I post for critique, and if someone wants to take the time and tell me what they like/don't like and offer suggestions, then I'm grateful. You can make a well thought out critique without sounding harsh. Personally, I'm not afraid to recieve critical comments, because I'm trying to take the broader view. If I can learn from what people say, and apply it, then they've made me a better photographer. It's not all about praise to me, it's about learning. If some of you want to take a look at my portfolio, don't be shy about leaving some honest critique.

If I can't take a little constructive criticism, then I have no business posting a portfolio. More people should be thinking along those lines. We all learn from each other.

[john_h.1]

I sampled about a third of your images Nicole. It is true that you recieved some comments which appear to be from those who gave you higher ratings. Some were analytical critiques but many were compliments (nice to get but not much more useful than a rating). There are still many higher rates without written critiques.

 

One good thing, You got some useful comments after this thread was posted.

 

Best Wishes, John.

[a.sparks]

For me, the point has been that 3/3's never come with a critique. At first I figured 3/3's were from "real" pros who could discern far more than the average photographer. When I realized there were next to zero critiques left with any 3/3 it was quite clear these were from childish fools who probably don't know much. Just passing through with time to kill. The fact that the site takes their anonymous ratings and gives them greater say than those with critiques is really annoying. Personally, I would like to have a day of boycott where nobody posts or rates anything. Just a little message to the site owners. And before you go to my site, yes there are some less than stellar photos, so I am not begrudging anyone their opinion. Just have the character to stand behind them and provide useful feedback.

[ingermargrete]

What I have experienced on another web site is that you don`t rate photos at all, but you give your vote to the photos that you think are the best, one vote per image per person, the photos then need a certain number of votes from different people to appear amongst the Top Photos. Just a different approach. Then no one gets upset because of low ratings, instead those who appear on Top Photos are pleased:)

[ingermargrete]

If this kind of voting is getting out of hand, then the number of votes one person can give per week, for example, could be restricted:)