dave.englund Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizweisiger Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan flanders Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.englund Posted July 14, 2007 Author Share Posted July 14, 2007 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.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.englund Posted July 14, 2007 Author Share Posted July 14, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 "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 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 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)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Taylor Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 It's just the way it is. Get used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin carron Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 "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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 <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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now