Ratings - Again

[karl.jahr]

I would like to suggest to provide a separate ratings category which is

available only to people with recognized credentials in the photo net community,

be it through forum contributions, regular critics rather than ratings of

pictures, etc. People like David Orea or Fred Goldsmith, among others, come to

mind. - Josh, what do you think?

[jgalyon]

talking about opening a Pandora's box...

 

i don't think an explanation of my statement is necessary.

[Norma Desmond]

Karl/John--

 

Karl, I appreciate your acknowledgment of my contributions and know of many others who

participate in extremely helpful ways, including John. There are names that we see over

and over again who provide substantial critiques and stimulating contributions.

 

I can understand why John might see this as opening a Pandora's box. I will say, though,

that I've been told about (no first-hand knowledge) other sites where you only get to have

your own work rated and critiqued based on the quantity and quality of the critiquing you

do. I understand there are ways of keeping track, whether it be software generated or

through actually being rated on your critiques and scoring points that way. Your own

visibility then becomes dependent on your own contributions. (And I'm sure, like every

other system, these systems get abused as well.)

 

The critique queues are often very full, making each photo's time up for view and critique

relatively short in the scheme of things. I do get annoyed by those who consistently post 4

photos at a time and who limit their comments on others photos, if they make any at all,

to "nice shot" and the common variety of claptrap we're all used to seeing. At the very

least, I would think putting a photo up for critique could be limited to 1 per 24-hour

period (if not even less) with relative ease.

 

I don't know the best method by any means. But I think there should be a concerted effort,

and SOON, to improve the critiquing section of this site which encourages more thoughtful

and helpful critiques in particular. I don't think it would be an impossible task.

[joshroot]

I'm not sure we can rely on a "master class" of photographers to give this sort of critique for free whenever it is demanded.

 

And then of course, there is the problem of "who is qualified and who is not".

[jgalyon]

Josh summed up my concerns about the concept.

[Norma Desmond]

Josh--

 

Understood. How about the idea of limiting submissions to the queue? And how about

considering how some of the other sites handle critiquing? I understand you may have

thoughts you're not ready to share because you don't want to be held to something you're

not quite sure of, but some kind of constructive answer to the question of the very bad state

of critique on this site, I believe, is warranted. Thanks.

 

--Fred

[jgalyon]

Even if there were a "master class" of photographer available and willing... i don't like the idea period. And as Josh said... how do we determine "who is qualified and who is not"? Seems like fertile ground for all sorts of jealousy, angry and hurt feelings from those who feel qualified...yet not chosen to be part of "the class". I honestly think this approach to resolving the problem isn't practical/workable on many levels. What I don't like about the concept is this: personally, i see the fact that photographers of all skill and experience levels are able to participate in the community without feeling like second-class citizens. Implementing a master class just smacks a bit of allowing elitism to take a foothold in the community. I understand that Karl suggested a separate ratings category...not doing away with the present system, but I still don't like the segregation this would create.

 

Fred... I wanted to address this portion of my comment to you in particular, because you raise some valid issues.

 

"There are names that we see over and over again who provide substantial critiques and stimulating contributions."

 

That is undeniably true. I'm just not sure if...or how that should factor into all this. on one hand... i want to stand by the position i intially stated, while on the other, i don't like the fact that people who continually take the time and effort to provide "substantial critiques and stimulating contributions"...should be thrown into the same pot with those who make little or no effort to provide either.

 

so, i guess it's obvious to say that i'm conflicted on the issue.

 

in theory...i like the idea of a member's visibility being based proportionally to their contribution. the more you give, the more you receive. what could be wrong with that? perhaps one thing. "Quantity" seems to pose no problem, but "quality" ... is another animal. What constitutes a quality critique is so subjective...and definitely an open door for abuse. Not only that, but many, many people just don't have the skills necessary to provide a "good" critique. It may be that they just don't have the ability to articulate their thoughts on a photograph. They might have learning disabilities, that while not affecting their ability to to take a good photograph, or understand and appreciate a "good/bad" photograph...prohibits them from putting it in writing. There would be many, many beginners who haven't a clue as to how to go about critiquing a picture. Bottom line... i don't like any system that penalizes someone because they truly "can't" provide a valid critique. But, I realize that this is a totally separate issue from those who are just too damned lazy and selfish to offer any substantive contribution. But how do you distinguish between the two?

 

I'm thinking...brainstorming off the top of my head, not necessarily from one of the deep folds of any particular lobe. So my thinking on many aspects of the topic remains quite malleable at this point. Unfortunately I have more questions than answers.

[jgalyon]

p.s.- Fred, if this "master class" were created...I'd put you at the "head of the class". lol! (doesn't this term sound too much like "master race"?);)

[fullmetalphotograper]

I am just a simple photographer, and I do not know how you would define this "Master Class"

just different genres and disciplines alone it would be a nightmare. Would you go by

experience or number of postings? This is a very slippery slope. Of course reason I come this

spot is to learn and improve my work.

[Norma Desmond]

John--

 

Thanks. Your thoughts, conflicted though they may be, are all valid and bring up a lot of

good points. That's why it's obvious to me that a fair amount of thought has to go into

this whole thing. I've been a member for a year now, and while I'm hopeful that thought is

going into this aspect of the site, I've heard no substantial ideas from any of the

administrators about directions they would like to head in. And I do understand it's not an

easy one.

 

I agree with you on the unworkability of the master class idea. I've actually sort of got that

going with a few friends myself, who regularly critique each other in depth. But I think that

has to come more on an individual basis. Among us, we know who the more and less

experienced are and we understand that, often, less experience comes with valuable

insights from which the more experienced can learn. What I may offer in certain technical

advice, a beginner may be able to match in emotional response and observation to my

own photos.

 

One thought I had was to have members register in one or two categories in which they

feel more expert and see if, like nominations for the Academy Awards, that could

somehow parlay into more insightful critiquing and rating by genre. I often feel that street

shooters, among others, are automatically at a disadvantage ratingswise because more

people seem to rate stunning landscapes higher than good documentary stuff. If more

street shooters were rating other street shooters, the photographers might get a truer

read of how they were actually doing and more useful critiques from like-minded citizens.

[jgalyon]

Fred, I'm up late...but frazzled...exhausted. I'll be sure to reply tomorrow. I think you have a good idea in that last paragraph... :)

[jgalyon]

Well, I'll try again...tomorrow. Forgot to check by today.

[Norma Desmond]

It's holiday time. You're allowed a day off! Happy New Year.

[jgalyon]

Thanks Fred! I'm about to take my bride out to dinner...so if I don't get back to you guys until tomorrow...you'll know my evening came off as planned! ;) Happy New Year to all...and especially to you Fred!

[jgalyon]

Well, it appears I took five days off! Fred, I'm truly interested in your idea...but I don't feel I have a totally clear understanding of it. I realize you've only thrown out a general concept at this point. Care to elaborate a bit? :) john