date of rating

[someoneelse]

Is there a reason that there is no date behind the rating? And is there a

possibility to get this back?

 

Els

[joshroot]

Which page are you looking at? Which image?

[someoneelse]

Hi Josh, I mean when I go to my own portfolio, and look at my ratings, there was always a date behind the ratings, so what I mean is all my and other images. Perhaps it is gone for a long time, I am not sure. It is sometimes hard to follow everything, thanks for quick reaction.

[vincetylor]

The date of a rating given was done away with when Brian made all ratings anonymous a

few years ago. When he subsequently brought the names back, he did not bring back the

dates of the rates. This was a step backwards in the eyes of most photographers.

 

 

When you receive a new rating on an older image there is just no way to see who stopped

by your older work and gave the rating since the list of those having rated your image are

listed in alphabetical order, rather than in times past, according to the date rated.

 

I used to actually check my older work occasionally just for this reason. Would be nice to

see who was taking the time to go through my older work. I would always take a look at

theirs in return . Today, that is really impossible.

 

Josh, there was a time on photo.net, when all ratings were public, when phony raters

could not hide behind the protection of anonymity, when ratings were listed according to

the date rated rather than alphabetical and all ratings were used for for placement on the

TRP rather than just a handful.

 

This place was hopping back then. Many, myself included, have just given up on this site

due to the experience being nowhere what it once was. The greatest culprit, in the minds

of the photographers I have kept in touch with (and there are several with outstanding

bodies of work), has been the anonymous lowballing that happens every single day.

 

 

Back when all ratings were public, Photo.net still had bogus accounts that would lowball

certain photographers, and high-rate themselves and/or their friends. But because these

ratings were public, we could easily see exactly who was cheating and then report them. At

one point Brian mentioned deleting over two percent of all rates because of this, over just

one weekend. Once Brian implemented the anonymous rating system, these same lowball-

high rate cheaters now had the cloak and protection of being nameless.

 

You simply cannot tell any longer if the 3/3 is bogus or if it is real. But because it only

takes one 3/3 to knock an image completely out of the TRP top "Rate-recent" pages,

(especially when only a few ratings are garnered from that source nowadays) many people

have just said enough.

 

 

I am one of them. I have rated many images on this site in times past. Over 12,000. I have

made many comments on newbies and pros alike, over 1,500. I have posted over 100

images for critique and been active on every one of those images sharing my own

knowledge and experience. But the Photo.net experience has just been diminished, in this

photographer's mind for the reasons posted above.

 

 

It would be great news to see that experience return. I for one would return with it. If you

were to see just how many other established Photo.netters have left this site, you might be

astounded.

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to read this. It sounds to me like you are looking to get this

experience back to what once was.

 

 

I hope you accomplish just that!

 

 

All the best,

 

Vince

[joshroot]

<i>"Back when all ratings were public, Photo.net still had bogus accounts that would lowball certain photographers, and high-rate themselves and/or their friends. But because these ratings were public, we could easily see exactly who was cheating and then report them."</i>

<p>

Yes, and if just reporting issues was all that users ever did, the ratings would have stayed public. But people could not control themselves and would harass, revenge rate, and send nasty hate mail to those who had "wronged" them with a low rating. These were not just fringe "crackpots" many of them were otherwise average users who just could not act like an adult when it came to the ratings system.

<p>

While I suppose anything is possible, I highly doubt that ratings will ever be completely public again.

[vincetylor]

Josh,

 

My point is that if individual lowballers and cheaters are going to act this way back when

the ratings were PUBLIC, how much more so when able to hide behind the protection of

anonymity?

 

 

They've been given exactly what they want; PROTECTION.

 

 

 

That is what's been the most frustrating, IMO, about the entire Photo.net ratings system.

 

 

 

They can hide and wreak havoc as long as they wish today. As long as they are not caught.

 

 

If you tried going back to public ratings, putting the dates on the ratings and then made

the default TRP page based on number of ratings (rather than averages) you would see a

very healthy return by numerous photographers.

 

True the nudes would probably be near the top, but now we have the opportunity to filter

those out.

 

 

By using the "number of ratings" for default, you minimize the effectiveness of lowballers.

 

 

In fact, lowballing would only increase visibility by adding another rating altogether.

 

 

The top photos pages would continue to change, on an hourly basis, as an image received

more and more ratings due to it's overall appeal, rather than be fixed often for three full

days, as it is now, with only a handful of ratings from the RR.

 

 

Just try it for three months and watch what happens.

 

 

 

You can send me a thank you gift then...

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the reply.

[someoneelse]

Vincent does say: "They've been given exactly what they want; PROTECTION.

 

 

That is what's been the most frustrating, IMO, about the entire Photo.net ratings system."

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I completely agree with that statement... But what can I do, not a lot

--happy hollidays and also thanks to all the good things what PN did do, and I hope we don't forget the humor, I miss it, sometimes we are too much serious

 

--Els

[WJT]

Aloha Vince, you know, it's been so long from that time when the Gallery's TRP default setting was <b>Number of Ratings</b> that I had forgotten how <i>really well</i> the system worked back then. Brian had changed the default filter to what we have now because, as you mention, the nude photographs dominated the scene. But now, this is a mute point since we have a means to reduce their presence. Why not go back to what we had? Seems logical to me. The abusive low ball ratings would most certainly be reduced becuse of the reason that you gave. <br><br>

 

Regarding anonymous ratings, I can understand why Brian implemented them. He wanted the site to function autonomously with as little intervention from the Administration as possible and to have the computers handle all the rating problems. There were indeed problems when people were identified with the rates that they gave. But the simple solution would have been to handle abusive members directly, quickly, and permanently. Brian did not want to (or could not) do that. He wanted a system that ran without intervention; I do not blame him because his work load was quite overwhelming.<br><br>

 

But let's be honest. If more resources are becoming available to this site, then there should be a way to handle a non-anonymous rating scheme and we should be able to have that "hopping experience" that many of us miss become a reality once again. As it is now, it is not an enlightening experience to post a photograph to the Gallery for Critique. <br><br>

[iron shore gallery]

I'm very glad to see these lucid posts about the rating system. It is as others have said, a system that gives Protection to people who abuse it. And it makes the rating system, and the critique forum useless.

 

So what is the point in participating here?

[someoneelse]

I have NO idea what the point is to paticipate here, I just did have a question about the date. I have been here on PN for more then 4 years now, and a lot of changes did happen... But this anonimously rating is a BIG frustration, I miss the time I could see who gave me a low rating, that was very lucid, but the answer we do get is always that we cannot act like adults, we are childish, I don?t see a problem in that, I did do things I am not realy proud of, but it was in the open, lucid you know! Perhaps it is an idea that you only can give a 3/3 if you leave a comment, but that?s another rule, and will make it more complicated, ahhh I just don?t know, but talking about it, listen to each other, is perhaps the best participating part...

 

Els

[joshroot]

The things I do not like about using the number of ratings as the default view are:

 

1. You are rewarding images for both good and bad ratings. An image that everyone hates and rates lowly will show up just as high as one that everyone rates highly.

 

2. People will just start to cheat at that system as well. Instead of rating highly, they will just get their friends to rate more frequently. In fact, with no high ratings needed to get into the top list, it would be even easier to cheat.

 

Remember, Brian was a smart guy (and still is), he didn't just make changes to the rating system for the fun of it or to piss people off. Every change was an attempt to stop the cheating and end complaints. Just because it didn't work doesn't mean that there wasn't a good reason for doing it at the time.

 

The short answer is that there is no small change that will "fix" the ratings system. Everything we can do within the current system has already been tried. A completely new system is needed and has to be created. I frequently ask people to contact me with ideas for how this new system could be designed, because I want input from the users. But nobody ever takes me up on the offer. People just want complain about the present instead of helping to improve the future.

[WJT]

<i>"...But nobody ever takes me up on the offer..."</i><br><br>

Now that's not fair, Josh. There have been a lot of ideas regarding improvements expressed in this Forum; just because those members have not written to you directly is no reason to say that we don't respond. It would be just as unfair for me to say that you do not care to make improvements, which is, of course, not the case. <br><br>

Your job is a hard one, anyone who has been around this site for a time realizes that. You should be respected for the effort that you have put in to making things work here. But you should also not disrespect your members. Fair is fair. Regards.

[joshroot]

Walter,

 

I'm not disrespecting anyone, I'm just stating a fact. Very few people have done what I asked as far as submitting ideas. I asked people to write to me directly, I didn't ask them to post in the forums. I never said "don't post in the forums" either, I have simply told people that if they would like to pass on their ideas for fixing the forum system, I would ask them to email me directly. To complain about that request is the same as complaining about the Mcdonalds drive-through not getting your order because you shouted it from across the parking lot, rather than driving to the window as they asked.

 

As a frequent Feedback Forum reader, you should know how difficult it is to have a reasonable forum discussion on a subject as contentious as the ratings system. There are too many people with a grudge to settle against the site or a chip on their shoulder and the discussions inevitable devolve into insults and accusations, even from normally rational people. There is also the issue that, due to the massive amount of cheating that goes on, I am not at all interested in tipping my hand before I have to about what any new system will look like. A private discussion solves this issue and allows me to ask questions to users that I would not ask publicly.

 

And finally, I have a lot on my plate. There is more work to be done on photo.net than I can keep track of. And just like I do with most every improvement idea that anyone has, I request that people email me so that I can keep organized as best as possible. I make mistakes and forget things just like everyone else. So to minimize that, I ask people to work with my "system" and email me.

 

When I post, I'm not just talking to hear myself talk. It has been well proven that when I say something, there is a reason for it.

[vincetylor]

Is strange, I posted this but do not see it on the thread. It took over an hour to put

together. If it shows up twice, I apologize.

 

 

 

 

Josh said:...

 

 

 

 

 

"The things I do not like about using the number of ratings as the default view are:

 

 

"1. You are rewarding images for both good and bad ratings. An image that everyone

hates and rates lowly will show up just as high as one that everyone rates highly."

 

 

 

 

 

***** My reply:

 

You reward "INTERESTING" images. Not necessarily the "prettiest".

 

 

Because we are talking about "accumulated number of ratings", each image will start off at

the bottom. Whereas by using the "average" rating, like now, an image could easily start

off at number one, or at the very least high up and then stay there the entire time based

on just a handful of ratings, and often by phony accounts. Using the NUMBER of ratings

would also encourage people to look further down the list to see what images they find

interesting, and or are moving up the TRP ladder. This is exactly what happened a few

years ago to myself and many others.

 

 

And then, if enough interest is garnered by an image, (due to its uniqueness, aesthetic

appeal or other reasons making it popular), it still takes time to work its way up to the top

page. Very rarely, you would see an occasional photo have such an appeal it would quickly

shoot to the top of the pages within a day or two. I remember when this one was posted

how quickly people found it fascinating and appealing enough to bring it to the top of the

TRP within a day or so.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1217326

 

 

Such examples like that were rare though. But notice, the average rating of that image is

not very high. An image like this may not be as aesthetically appealing as a seascape, but

because it was every bit as appealing --and then some-- it shot up to the top of the TRP.

This is yet another advantage of using the number of ratings over the average. Many

unique images deserving recognition are not aesthetically oriented. Yet enough people

found that one (and many like it) interesting enough to rate it, which push it higher up on

the list. The TRP pages become much more interesting. Every hour the sequence of images

would change. The most interesting would go to the top. This would also discourage

lowballing (the single greatest problem today IMO), because even a lowball adds an

additional rating. Mate-rating would still exist, but the impact lessens due to the facat it

only adds one rating. Plus mate-rating still exists today. You do however, minimize the

lowballing, which is a far greater issue to many.

 

 

 

 

Josh said:.."2. People will just start to cheat at that system as well. Instead of rating highly,

they will just get their friends to rate more frequently. In fact, with no high ratings needed

to get into the top list, it would be even easier to cheat.

 

 

 

*****Not true. Think about if for just a second, Josh. The images at the top of the pages

could very easily have 40, 50 or 60 ratings or more. No matter how much people cheat,

the newer images will still start at zero. It will take TIME for new images to work their way

up. Then as the top images reach the three day limit, they fall out and others keep moving

up. It almost becomes like watching a horse race. Everybody seemed very involved when it

was set up this way. It was far more interesting than watching one image receive 6-12

ratings from the RR and be at the top spot for three full days, even if subsequent ratings

lowered its score. Very boring, quite unfair and one that allows cheaters to have a huge

impact.

 

 

It also encourages others to rate other images more often because then people would at

the very least "check-out" their images and perhaps get an extra rating along the way.

This is another reason why I hope you base the list of raters for an image according to the

"date rated" as this thread was initially started for, rather than alphabetical order as is the

case now.

 

 

 

Josh said:..."Remember, Brian was a smart guy (and still is), he didn't just make changes to

the rating system for the fun of it or to piss people off. Every change was an attempt to

stop the cheating and end complaints. Just because it didn't work doesn't mean that there

wasn't a good reason for doing it at the time."

 

 

 

 

****** Brian was very happy with the number of ratings as the default view. That's why he

left it that way for so long. It worked for all the reasons described above. It was only after

categorizing the images (landscape, portraits, NUDES etc) that the nudes started to

dominate the ratings because now people could look and rate nothing but nudes that

caused Brian to have no choice but make a switch back to average. There were no nude

filters at the time and he made it clear that that would never be happening anytime soon,

if at all.

 

Today, the no nudes filters allows people that option.

 

 

I just did a search on the TRP with "number of ratings" and "ALL PHOTOS" as the selected

choice, rather than filtering out the nudes. Only four out of 40 were nudes. I just think

that is a nice selection overall.

 

 

 

 

Josh said:.."The short answer is that there is no small change that will "fix" the ratings

system. Everything we can do within the current system has already been tried. A

completely new system is needed and has to be created. I frequently ask people to contact

me with ideas for how this new system could be designed, because I want input from the

users. But nobody ever takes me up on the offer. People just want complain about the

present instead of helping to improve the future."

 

 

 

***** My suggestion is to try the system that absolutely worked the best during the many

years I was a part of this place. It was definitely a happening place. like nothing else I have

since seen anywhere. So many outstanding photographers have picked up and left solely

due to the lowballing cheaters and the skewed TRP today. So many great photographers

will not run images through the RR any longer.

 

 

 

 

Once they have their Top Photographers placement in a good position, they then just post

for critique only. Do you know just how many great images never get a chance to be on

the TRP, due to the lowballers waiting to attack?

 

 

 

My suggestions, based on much experience here is:

 

 

1- Keep the maximum 7's allowed for a given day. (This will continue to help minimize

mate-rating).

 

 

2-Take away the ability of raters to hide behind the curtain of anonymity. (This is the

single greatest frustration to those wishing to participate here today). This one change

alone will bring many back to Photo.net. I guaranty it.

 

 

3- Put the names of the raters in order according to the date the rating was given rather

than alphabetically. This allows the photographer to check out all his work (especially his

older images and see just who took the time to look at and rate). Almost always we take

the time to do the same in return. Ratings across the site overall will increase and a

greater sense of friendship and or camaraderie will result almost all of the time.

 

 

4- Make the TRP default view based on "NUMBER OF RATINGS" and just see how much

more fun and interesting it becomes. And if not on number of ratings then make the

default based on "AVERAGE RATING". But base that default view on all the average ratings

received altogether, and not as it currently is, which is based on the RR (Rate Recent

queue) exclusively. By doing that, the ratings will continue to change over the full course

of the three days it receives ratings, rather than just on the few hours from the RR.

 

 

5- If you catch a person cheating then take away their ability to rate at all for a period of

time.

 

 

6- I have been on sites where they literally post the IP address of each member, so that

suspected cheaters can be pegged by other members. Sure, occasionally you will have

different users from the same computer, but you can fairly easily tell what's going on by

looking at past rating history. Or disallow any ratings on the same images by multiple

users from the same computer.

 

 

There are numerous other ideas that may come to mind later. But this system absolutely

worked before. You had one big problem of mate-rating back then, but there were no

limits on the number of 7's at that time, as is the case now.

 

 

Many of us cannot forget what Photo.net once was Josh. I can only ask that you sincerely

take a look at what I have suggested, based on many years of involvement and experience

on this site.

 

 

Many here are almost pleading with you to just give it a chance. And it may prevent you

from having to create a new system altogether. This one definitely worked as best I have

seen anywhere.

 

 

Once again, thanks for taking the time to read this.

 

 

My best to you and yours,

 

Vince

[joshroot]

Vincent, I deleted your post because despite my request to email me with ratings suggestions, and despite my stating exactly why I was making this request, you posted a long list of suggestions here anyway. I also emailed you with exactly that explanation.

 

It's hard for me to get excited about listening to someone when they aren't willing to listen to me.

[vincetylor]

I never read that reply before posting, nor received an e-mail from you, and still have not. I

did not know that actual suggestions in the Site feedback forum were discouraged. At least

now I know what happened.

 

Thanks.

 

 

PS- Just trying to help, nothing more...

[joshroot]

Suggestion in the Feedback forum are very obviously welcome, with the exception of this ONE issue for the reasons I have stated above.

 

Also, if you did not receive any email, you might check to make sure that it is not being eaten by your spam catcher. As it is likely you aren't receiving any email from the photo.net servers.

[vincetylor]

I forgot to add point 7. If you decide to delete I will understand. But if you keep it up, I

would like to add that part of my suggestion. Thanks again. Will send future suggestions

to you personally.

 

Vince

 

 

7- I would also look at the possibility of removing the "Top Photographers"

List altogether. And I am fairly high up on that list. But that list is the primary

reason why many people mate-rate and cheat today, IMO. It is also a chief reason why

many will not run beautiful images through the RR at all. They do not want to lose their

placements on that list. One quick look at the first few pages of that list will tell you

exactly just who is trying to maintain their precious location on that list. Gte rid of it

altogether, and then more photographers will post their images for ratings and get more

visibility in the process. The number of views an image receives is far higher when ratings

are allowed anyway. But because low ratings will lower their Top Photographer average

placement, many of these same photographers will not allow any ratings at all. It's

actually quite humorous to watch at times.

[vincetylor]

Suggestion in the Feedback forum are very obviously welcome, with the exception of this

ONE issue for the reasons I have stated above.

 

Also, if you did not receive any email, you might check to make sure that it is not being

eaten by your spam catcher. As it is likely you aren't receiving any email from the

photo.net servers.

 

 

****** I receive these notices instantly. But have not seen anything from you personally.

Though when you actually commented on my first response, far above, there was a delay

of several hours before I received the notice.

 

 

Anyway, I will send all future suggestions to you personally, for reasons I have just now

read. Thanks again!

 

vince

[cappoldt]

Josh, suggestions for improvements - both public in this forum and privately on emails to Admins - went on for years as frustrations mounted. The harassment and adolescent behavior is precisely what drove me off a few years ago, the cost of the aggravation outweighing the benefits of this community.

 

IMHO, what really needs to change is the culture of the site in these regards. Members need an up-front policy, as thorough an education (with examples) as possible, and a good policing.

 

At the end of the day, the facts are these: If anyone is going to take a rating to heart or with value, they should see what the rater is themselves producing, and what their habits are. The logic behind that is obvious, I hope.

 

Nice to see this one back on the table again. . .and will watch from afar to view its progress.

 

 

Meanwhile, food for thought:

http://web.mac.com/aaronandpatty/What_the_Duck/Comic_Strips/Entries/2007/11/30_WTD_358_files/WTD358.gif

[joshroot]

<i>"Josh, suggestions for improvements - both public in this forum and privately on emails to Admins - went on for years as frustrations mounted."</i>

<p>

I am aware of that, it's not like I just fell of the turnip truck. This is the start of my 10th year hanging around photo.net and my 5th or 6th as part of the crew that runs the place.

<p>

That having been said, cursing me for problems of the past isn't going to get anyone anywhere. I can only be responsible for what is under my control. I have set out the path to conversations about changing the ratings system. If people care anything about making improvements, they should take me up on the offer. Otherwise they can feel free to complain to each other as usual about now nobody wants to listen.