value of ratings

[john.mathieson]

I must say I am really wondering about the value of ratings on this website. I

just put up a photo, and in the first 5 ratings got all the way from 3s to a 7.

I'm no Ansell Adams, but this photo has been published and received a lot of

feedback elsewhere - so I know it is not a crummy photo. You might not

particularly like it, but how can one explain such a wide range of ratings?

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6727387

 

Do people actually look at the photos? What is the point of having someone able

to leave a 3 rating, but not have to give a comment?

 

I saw mention previously about people putting up false ratings for whatever

twisted reason they might have.

 

Now, I also must say that the top rated photos on this site are very inspiring -

and very humbling - but I also see some really wacky ratings on most of the top

photos, too.

 

?Que?

[phoneguy]

This horse is dead. There are daily post about the ratings system. Use the search function,

and read until your heart is content.

[brucecahn]

It is a hard photo to rate. If you have never seen any picture like it, you would give it a 7. It is undoubtedly a beautiful picture. However it is not all that unusual a picture for this site, which lowers the rating. A 3, of course, is ridiculous. I would think about 6 but give it a 5. 5 1/2 might be better if there were halves.

[richard glover]

My camera club conducts twice yearly contests ... we are able to see the ratings (1 -5 in this case) that the judges give to the images. It is not unusual for one judge to rate an image 5, while another one rates it as a 1. People's tastes differ. Even among talented, experienced, professional photographers, tastes vary. Just because one judge thinks a photo is top of the heap, doesn't mean that another one will.

[kolaczan]

On average, the ratings work. If you look at the best photos of the day/week/month, the first 200 or so are generally better than the rest (of course there are many gems hidden in the lower reaches).

 

That is about all the ratings do for me. Save me a bit of time sorting through every photo posted in order to see the good ones. Maybe give me a bit of an ego boost when I crack the top 100 for a few days.

 

Don't attach too much value to them. It will drive you nuts.

[joshroot]

Asking a random group of people to rate an image is going to give you a random group of answers. You need to filter the results in your head and toss out the overly high and overly low results.

 

Or, just don't worry about it too much.

[iron shore gallery]

There must be some bot that is giving out those threes. I have the same issues with many photos with ratings from 7 to 3. No members ever give out threes.

 

Last night I uploaded a photo http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00NdLH&photo_id=6731223&photo_sel_index=0 in the middle of the night, and put it on the critique forum. Within two minutes there was a 3 rating. There are now seven ratings with two 6's and three 5's.

 

Something odd is going on... I do I guess think that there is a bot out there giving each new forum photo a perfunctory 3.

 

All that said, there are many beautiful photos posted here.

[alexguerra]

Some people like blue while others don't. Maybe there's just too much blue in that photo.

[Norma Desmond]

Any really good photo SHOULD get some 3s, otherwise it would just be boring and usual.

 

Think about it. Avedon would get 3s. Cartier Bresson would get 3s. A good photograph will

naturally not appeal to everyone. Anything that appeals to the least common denominator is

probably lacking in creativity. I would not give your photo a 3, but it is original and creative

enough to definitely warrant some 3s by people who will not appreciate it. If everyone liked

all your photos, you would be an uninteresting photographer.

[jimadams]

Sooner or later, <i>everyone</i> questions the Photo.net rating system. You put up a photograph you think is really good and/or interesting, and it gets a 3/3 (or several) along with higher ratings.<p>

 

We all want to believe our work is good, that it has some sort of validity and/or meaning to people other than ourselves. Then we get slammed with the 3/3 ratings, usually anonymous, and we're like...wtf? Surely it can't be <i>that</i> bad can it? And it usually isn't that bad, when all is said and done.<p>

 

The simple fact of the matter is this: If you post on an Internet photography site where your images are rated and/or critiqued, there will always...always...be someone who doesn't like what you do. No matter how good you are or how good you think you are. No matter what genre you shoot in.<p>

 

Also, there will always be someone, especially when they can numerically rate and remain anonymous, who do it just for spite, or just because they can.<p>

 

It's just a fact of life on Internet photography sites, and you really can't be thin-skinned and post on this site.

[emotive]

Well said and true Jim, and just like the real world, don't you think?

 

It seems too, that timing is everything. Images posted for critique might get good ratings on one day and not so good on the next.

 

I find the comments valuable, especially when the commentator has posted work. I cannot proof my own written work and a critique from an experienced eye is just as valuable with images as it is with an editor of written work.

 

Helmut Newton said that a nude without a face is "somehow dishonest."

 

The same could be said of ratings, don't you think?

[Timo Hartikainen]

You can always think that 3/3 ratings are just from fellow photographers who are jealous because they didn't shoot it :)

[iron shore gallery]

I appreciate the feedback. It all makes good sense. I guess I was a little surprised how quickly the 3 came after I had posted.

 

I've taken to only rating or commenting on photographs that I like.