anonymous raters = lack of accoutability

[dave.englund]

In my opinion there is little to be gained by anonymous ratings. It allows folks

who are of a malicious nature to interfere with the true purpose of this site -

a community of photographers who want to improve their craft by interacting with

each other in mutually beneficial ways, and that includes both ratings and

critiques.

 

Those who rate photos as 3/3 on this site most often lack the courage and

integrity to be accountable or are photographically ignorant. I say "most often"

because there are times when an image deserves a 3/3 rating. But even then, most

photographers who have an ounce of integrity would not give such a rating

without also accompanying it with constructive feedback that is meant to help

the inexperienced grow and develop new skills.

 

Please consider removing the anonymity from the ratings system. The opinion of a

man or woman who is unwilling to put his or her signature to it should be

suspect from the outset, and deserves little or no value toward serving the

purposes of this community.

[lizweisiger]

Even though I am a relative newcomer, I have to agree with Dave, because I have noticed the unfairness about certain ratings too many times.

 

Isn't there a compromise available? How about no 3/3's unless accompanied by a critique? Isn't this old news anyway?

[dan flanders]

If someone is anti-social enough to unfairly rate an image there is nothing to prevent his accompanying it with a string of gibberish or malicious invective. This issue has been beat to death over the past several years on this forum and no rational alternative to the current system has been offered -- because there is NO rational alternative!

[dave.englund]

I use a weblog service called TypePad. To protect bloggers from comment spam, a blog owner can require users to either supply a valid email address or be registered through TypeKey (see <a href="http://www.typekey.com"><u>www.typekey.com</u></a>). Creating a TypeKey account allows the commenter to still remain anonymous while also being accountable. I would think something like that might provide an additional layer of protection.

 

Also, why not allow members some choices here in terms of global settings on ratings; anonymous, members-only, etc.?

[mike dixon]

Dave, try a photo.net search on "anonymous ratings" or something similar, and you should get dozens of threads that explain exactly why anonymous ratings were introduced. Those reasons have been explained over and over and over and over again.

[dave.englund]

Okay, I'll get over it and move on. But, I think I did perhaps offer a rational alternative;-) Let's get back to what we do.

[joshroot]

In a perfect world, Dave's thoughts would be fine.

 

However, it has been very well documented that photo.net's members do not live in a perfect world. Photo.net has an anonymous rating system because too many users are unable to accept criticism and lash out with revenge ratings and nasty email to anyone that they think has "wronged" them with too low of a rating.

[les]

"Photo.net has an anonymous rating system because too many users are unable to accept criticism and lash out with revenge ratings and nasty email..." - which should constitute the grounds for kicking out such individuals with no undue ceremony. Or...is this for some reason impossible ?

[mike dixon]

Leszek, why would a reactive approach that 1) brings about extensive fighting and abuse, 2) requires far more time and resources from moderators, and 3) results in kicking out a lot of people be superior to the current approach (which has minimized abuse, requires less moderation, and doesn't result in extensive and frequent banning of members)?

[tholte]

Dave and Liz, like Mike so accurately said: "Those reasons have been explained over and over and over and over again." I would like to add a few "and over and over and over" agains. Take some good photos, post them and don't worry about an occasional 3/3 from a malcontent. A rogue 3/3 very seldom keeps a good image out of the TRP so don't worry about it. If you do a lot of rating like I do and view beau coup photos, you will quickly learn that most 3/3's are well deserved (mine included) and are so bad they don't deserve a comment.

[les]

Mike - I am easy either way. I simply do not care much. What I said - it was just an observation/comment. It just amuses me to read that someone sues the council because the footpath was not exactly smmoth - so he/she fell and scratch a knee. Then the councils spend money warning people that they should "exercise caution when walking". Someone else dives from a cliff, injures himself - and then sues the council because there was no warning sign there...

 

In short: there is a tendency to convert the world we live in in a padded cell - where no one can hurt himself or others, where no one can offend anyone, where only politically correct statements are accepted etc. etc.

 

Some call it prevention - I call it limiting one's freedom.Except - how many people want to live in a padded cell ?

 

One should be allowed to do/say what he wants - and bear the consequences if required.

[mike dixon]

I don't really see that making it difficult for someone to retaliate against people who gives ratings he doesn't like is comparable to forcing people into a padded cell. Browsing through the forums and photo comments will show that people are quite free to disagree, say things that others don't like, and even argue if it doesn't degenerate into personal attacks, but, no, there is no guaranteed "freedom" to harass people who give ratings you don't like. That "freedom" has been traded in for the freedom to give honest ratings without fear of reprisal (and to give moderators/administrators the freedom to do something other than deal with frequent abuse claims and clean up constant flame wars).

[Ian Taylor]

It's just the way it is. Get used to it.

[colin carron]

You should have been here when a non-anonymous 1/1 was possible. There were lots of toys being thrown out the pram then.

 

It all adds up to not taking ratings too seriously.

[les]

"I don't really see that making it difficult for someone to retaliate against people who gives ratings he doesn't like is comparable to forcing people into a padded cell. "

 

You are entitled to not being able to see that. But nonetheless, every new "law" and regulation is created by chipping away small bits of your rights/freedom, one way or the other. I am not one of those civil rights activists - but sometimes they have a point.

 

In this case, Mike, the point is, that it is the INDIVIDUALS who should be responsible for their individual acts, not the whole COMMUNITY having its rights/freedom limited for no other reason than "just in case someone might want do it".

[mike dixon]

<i> But nonetheless, every new "law" and regulation is created by chipping away small bits of your rights/freedom, one way or the other.</i><P>

We're not talking about civil liberties or inalienable rights--we're talking about a completely arbitrary system for rating photos submitted to a website. If you choose to participate in that system, you are bound by the rules of that system. You don't get to hand out 7/7 ratings to every photo, you don't get to rate your own photos, you don't get to demand explanations from people who give ratings you don't like, etc.<P>

Calling the ability to easily retaliate against people who give ratings you don't like a "right" or a "freedom" doesn't actually make this a moral debate. It's still just a trivial argument about the rules in a completely-voluntary rating system on privately-owned website.