Anonymous photos not anonymous voters.

[stamos]

I am new in this site and I wonder if it would be more fair the photos that we

apply for critic to be anonymus (for the first week).

[jgalyon]

an interesting proposition, but if the powers that be change underwear as often as they make changes such as yours...you wouldn't want to walk closer than a mile from them... :)

[timzeipekis]

One of the few reasons I still visit this site is to read the blunt force trauma dose of honesty that only John can deliver.

[john_h.1]

Forget about it.

 

Its never going to be fair and there is no point in making it fair. If there were a controlled select group that rates based on the most objective criteria available, there would be a modicum of fairness. Anything else will result in unfairness. Even discussing fairness is pointless unless the purpose of the ratings is to have some sort of photo contest. If that is what you desire then you should look elsewhere because you will never get unbiased or neutral rates if the community at large is giving the ratings.

[ericf1]

Unless one believes that they are recieving low ratings because of who they are, as opposed to the quality of the images posted, I'm not sure what this would accomplish.

 

Look at your ratings like Olympic scoring, throw out the high and the low and you probably have a more fair represenation of how your photo is viewed by others. Now if you have six 3/3 ratings, you probably shouldn't throw out all of them :-).

[stamos]

Thank you Eric :-() I was just wondering. You wrote about one parameter (a very important one). There are other parameters that make this "Olympic" "game" more complex, the voters are "athletes" themselfs and when their vote is not anonymous then strange things may happen..

[stamos]

I mean that "Olympic" "game" may turn to "arena" and "athlets" to "gladiators". I would prefer the 3/3 vote to be NOT ANONYMOUS

on condition that we will behave like artists (no counter "attacks"). After all photography is also (but not only) ART.

[ericf1]

Stamoulis,

 

Point well taken, but from what I understand (I was not on Pnet at the time) anonymous ratings were not allowed at one point and things got pretty nasty, precisely because of "counter attacks".

 

 

I have rated images before as a 3/3, but not anonmously, and within seconds had a similar rating on one of my pics. I left comments with my rating as to why I thought it was a 3/3 and the photographer was still offended. I called them out on the rating of my photo, asking directly if the 3/3 was a result of my rating, and he subsequently changed the rating.

 

There are obviously folks that rate 3/3 when it is not obviously warranted, but there are also 6/6 raters that are probably overly generous, but no one complains about them.

[stamos]

I understand. As I said I am new here. Thank you all for your answers.