Strange rating - suggestion

[tomaso nigris]

Majority of photographer here in PN are interested in rating, because

technical comments are disappeared it's a way to understand the value of the

photo. But 3\3 anonymous rating without any technical reason is frustrating.

But what I want to add is something strange happened to me recently. I

received a rating around 5.5\5.8, minimum rating of 10 rating was 5/5 ( 7

anonymous) and it was in the top 50 pictures, suddenly after TWO days from

posting two 3\3 are coming from anonymous rater. Is it possible to have

anonymous rate after two days you posted the photo? A suggestion: why system

do not delete alway the highest and lowest rating as they do in many olympic

sport, like gymnastic, skating and so on?

[lex_photo]

Speaking as an ex skater, I don't like the new scoring system and prefer the previous.

That's just me, I figure (hahaha Like figure skating... okay bad joke) that with photos here

at PN, You're not going for a medal or a chance at winning a contest, so who cares if you

take out the high and the low. In fact I have a few photos that would then have no ratings

what so ever! I have to assume that the people who gave me the ratings felt that my photo

deserved it and then step back and try to figure out why. I find it helps me remove myself

emotionally from the photo and I can re examine it with new eyes. I will always agree that

a critique helps more then the ratings, but the ratings are nice to have when no critiques

are given. Just my two cents. - Lex

[photobiscuits]

sigh.<br>

"...why system do not delete alway the highest and lowest rating..."<br>

and then then next guy asks, "Why does the system delete the highest and lowest rating"<br>

and then the next guy says, "I think the system should delete only the 3's. all of them."<br>

and then the next guys says..."I think only my friends who will give me 7's should be able to rate my photos. 'Cause then I'll get all 7's. If they don't give me 7's then they're not my friends."<br>

and so on and so forth forever and ever and ever. I feel really sorry for you moderators you are a very patient bunch.

[pata]

Bigger sigh..:-)

 

Why not just do away with the rating system, altogether, so people can sleep at night?

[tomaso nigris]

Alexa, can you tell me more about new and old scoring system in skating. U are right when you say that we are not winning any medal, but wherever there is rating or scoring, people like to compete in a fair competition. The main point is how avoid or limit the 3\3 anonymous given without any technical reason only to do out of spite. I am year since many years and I built my photograph reputation along the time trying to improve my technique, my point of view and quality of my photos, I try to get this from rating, from the other pictures of good photographer and from comments that are less and less, because people is afraid to be missunderstood and to receive low rate. For me rating has a good value and I am proud to have an avarage rate of 5.79, so when I thnik I put a nice photo, I hope to see it in the top photos so I can receive some comments and also some other people can appreciate my work. That's why I am disappointed receving for the same photo 7\7 6\6 and also 3\3 without any comment. It is always happend but now is more and more. I am sure that these low rate are coming always from the same people. I am not saying that rating is so important and many times I received low ratinmg accepting, but now I can see that day by day PN is loosing the spirit of the beginning and quality of pictures is going down because a lot of good photographer left the website.

[tomaso nigris]

I don't beleive people saying are not interestes in rating, PN is based on rating this is a fact, there a lot of other photo web site without rating. Mike I understand what you are saying but you have to understand that system as it is it is not working well and a lot of good photographer are not posting good photos because they don't want to reduce their avarage rate so hardly reached. It is not my case but I know a lot and It's a pity that I acnnot see some ggod photos where i can learn a lot. it's very hard to have an high avarage of a big quantities of photos. I thnik that moderators are to be patient but also they are the only one that can really check the system and they should help PN to survive because is slowly dying.

[joshroot]

<i>"PN is based on rating this is a fact"</i>

<p>

No, it is not a fact. Photo.net is based on community and education. The ratings system is just one part of that. If you want to say the site is "based" on anything, it would have to be the forums as they were here first.

<p>

<I>"they should help PN to survive because is slowly dying."</i>

<p>

No, it isn't. I look at the numbers every week, it's part of my job. Photo.net is increasing in numbers and activity.

<p>

Just because you don't think there are as many nice photos, doesn't mean that is the truth. In the past 2-3 years, there has been a MASSIVE increase in the number of people who own digital SLR equipment and count "photography" as one of their hobbies. These people are typically beginners to photography, and are still going through their learning process. That may make it seem like there is less good photography on a site like photo.net, but that isn't the case. The truth is that there is more "average" photography than there was previously. The number of "good" photos has stayed the same.

<p>

And this will all change again someday in the future when these new photographer learn and evolve their skills and style. In a couple of years I will have to listen to what people were saying a few years back, "My photography isn't good enough to be on your website". I've been around photo.net for a long time, and trust me, everything runs in cycles here.

[fotografya]

This arguement sucks...

[anov]

Will anybody complain if they get 7/7? Will they get confused and dissapointed if somebody put 7/7 with no explanation? Is it cowardly to do such thing?

 

I remember this joke:

 

There was an old man, a boy and a donkey. They were going to town and it was decided that the boy should ride.

 

As they went along they passed some people who thought that it was a shame for the boy to ride and the old man to walk. The old man and boy decided that maybe the critics were right so they changed positions.

 

Later, they passed some more people who thought that it was a real shame for that man to make such a small boy walk. The two decided that maybe they should both walk.

 

Soon they passed some people who thought that it was stupid to walk when they had a donkey to ride. The man and the boy decided maybe the best thing would be for them both to ride the donkey.

 

Soon, they passed a group who thought that it was a shame to put such a load on a poor helpless animal. The old man and the boy decided that maybe the critics were right so they decided to carry the donkey.

 

As they crossed a bridge, they lost their grip on the animal and he fell into the river and drowned.

 

You can't please everybody. Thank you Josh for the hard work.

[lex_jenkins]

In the version of that story I was told as a child, a cave ogre named Chide the Ironic slow roasted the critics and ate them. The donkey ran for Congress, and passed a bill providing subsidized housing and medical care for the old man. The kid grew up to be an obnoxious right wing radio talk show host who criticized the donkey and old man. I laughed and laughed and laughed at that story that I just made up when I was a hypothetical child.