stoz Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 http://www.photo.net/photo/7059329 far from perfect picture of course, but, first or maybee second day i rate 5 7/7 anonymous ratings for this picture, now only one left, who is decreasing my ratings, http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=817750 also other pictures, loosing ratings in this categorie (not general, smoking related) what to f*** is wrong with you people, who is decreasing/erasing ratings ? i would definetly go away from this site, this is decision i've already made (without real explanation, that I'll buy it), but I want other people to know about this. my general PN portfolio is http://www.photo.net/photos/stoz hope that you people understand what I'm trying to say, you can send me mail to stozka@gmail.com for any questions anytime! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_dorcich1 Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Oh noes my ratings are going down! Does this really matter? At all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 As far as I know individuals cannot erase or delete ratings they've given to others. They can *change* but not delete them, if I'm recalling correctly. Site administration can delete fraudulent accounts, so ratings originating from those accounts would probably also be deleted. I don't see any reason why you should quit over a few numbers. Your photography is unusual. That type of photography is unlikely to appeal to most casual viewers, so don't worry about them. Do what you do and be grateful for the viewers who do appreciate your efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 "... far from perfect picture of course, but, first or maybe second day i rate 5 7/7 anonymous ratings for this picture, now only one left, who is decreasing my ratings" Nobody is "decreasing" your ratings. Without a doubt and with 100.00% certainty, if you have ratings (high or low) and they disappear later, then they were from bogus accounts. In other words, the ratings weren't "real" to begin with. Of course, there is no cry of outrage when bogus *low* ratings are removed. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainer_t Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 -- "but, first or maybee second day i rate 5 7/7 anonymous ratings for this picture" May be I somehow misunderstand this ... you rate your own picture 5 times with 7/7 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Michael is correct, if ratings disappear, it is because they were fraudulent accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I believe removal of 7/7 ratings is the 8th sign of the Apocolypse isn't it? Plague, Famine, Disease, removal of 7/7 ratings etc. Better head for the shelter.... Site administration removes bogus accounts from time to time. When those accounts are removed, all the rating they left are also removed. Typically many of those ratings are 3/3 or 7/7. Typically the bogus accounts appear and are removed in clusters. We don't do this just to annoy users. If we wanted to do that, we could come up with much better ways to do it, though removal of high ratings would seem to be a pretty effective method based on the number of complaints we get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 "We don't do this just to annoy users. If we wanted to do that, we could come up with much better ways to do it..." Persistently making sense tends to do this. Especially during election years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoz Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 no comment so far, read it all, if we were talking about one picture i'll maybe buy the story, but this way no way, election years ? who's gonna be a new earth president now ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 "...no comment so far, read it all, if we were talking about one picture i'll maybe buy the story, but this way no way..." <p> Hmm. Maybe it's all a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory">conspiracy</a> to lower your ranking here... <p> Like I said, rating bots are social creatures and tend to appear in packs, sometimes attacking certain images as a group. Sort of like letting a bunch of lions loose at a political convention (which may be that bad an idea). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoz Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 one more note, I'm not crying for 7/7 here (which where one of missing points).. I'm really sorry that I can't prove previous state. Fading away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoz Posted March 19, 2008 Author Share Posted March 19, 2008 Hello Bob. Sleeping over does help. One advice. You should organize online survey about anonymous ratings on PN. I've believe that every rating and critique should be signed with member name. regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 The anonymous vs. attributed ratings method has been discussed many, many times here. Go back and read some of the other discussions on this issue. You won't need to go back very far - just the past couple of weeks will do. This is a complex issue. Your concerns do not represent the concerns of all photo.netters. Some people prefer more ratings, even if anonymous. There's no single, simple solution. Having reconsidered this entire issue during the past couple of weeks made it clear that the current system works as well as possible to address most (not all) concerns of most (not all) people. But go back and read a dozen or so of the recent discussions on this same issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 "I've believe that every rating and critique should be signed with member name" I'm coming around to thinking that all critiques should be attributable (as indeed they are), but that all ratings should simply be given as a number (e.g. 7 ratings, average 4.25) with ONLY administrators and moderators able to see who gave who what individual rating. Note that though I'm an admin here, I don't set policy, so it's not my decision to make, but that's where my thinking is right now. It would be up to the site to have checks and balances in place in the software that would flag any unusual rating patterns and draw a moderators attention to them who could then take appropriate action if required. To some extent we already do this, but we could probably do it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 That's an interesting possibility, Bob. Altho' I suspect it will only lead to complaints about losing 0.05 points overnight due to fractional bots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 But we get those complaints anyway, so it wouldn't be any worse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 <i>"I've believe that every rating and critique should be signed with member name."</i><P> While that is a lofty and admirable belief, and in an ideal community where <b>everyone</b> behaved maturely and put their egos aside it might be desirable, we have already "been there, done that". That was how it used to be in the not too distant past before you joined, and it caused more problems, hurt feelings, and nasty immature childish behavior than any anonymous rating(s) ever has.<P> Josh has already indicated that there will <b>not</b> be a return to that scenario (all ratings public), so that ship has sailed ... and sunk. And to be perfectly frank, statements like <i>"what to f*** is wrong with you people, who is decreasing/erasing ratings?"</i> are a pretty clear demonstration of one of the reasons why the return to exclusively public ratings will <b>not</b> happen, and why anonymous ratings had to be implemented in the first place.<p> And as Bob has already noted, ALL critiques given on the site ARE "signed" with a member name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoz Posted March 19, 2008 Author Share Posted March 19, 2008 Well. I think that Bob's idea is great. With a little add-on. (e.g. 7 ratings, average 4.25)change to --> no counter at all, no member names for ratings display would be, example: average aesthetics: 4.56 average originality : 4.78 at some point of time a minute, hour, day, i don't know what, later it would be, example: average aesthetics : 4.34 average originality : 5.01 nobody wouldn't complain than. We will simply trust that your rating system is fair. "That's an interesting possibility, Bob. Altho' I suspect it will only lead to complaints about losing 0.05 points overnight due to fractional bots." Simply won't be true anymore. No counters, no hard feelings. Of course critiques system stays same. With member name for each one. My personal opinion again. Best regards, Matjaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Unless the average was updated without any reference to the number of ratings received, I suspect that some photographers will check their uploads daily to keep a running tally. They'll be able to calculate that a new rating was below their expectations and a few will complain about fractions. And if the photographer receives only one rating it will be immediately apparent what the rating was. On the other hand, if running tallies of total ratings were removed, some photographers would complain that they don't know how many ratings they are receiving. Keep in mind that one common complaint has been that not enough ratings are being given; not specifically that ratings are not high enough, or perceived to be fair or appropriate, but simply not enough were being given. Those people will want to know how many ratings are being given. Still, it might be interesting to experiment with Bob's suggestion, even if only for the anonymous ratings queue. Show a running tally of the total number of ratings but only an average figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 If we were going to go to a system that had no lists of individual ratings (which I am inclined to seriously consider), my first thought would be to have "X number of ratings Y is your average". At average of 6.6 out of 7 doesn't mean much if there are only two ratings. And given that I am fairly sure that whatever we do, we will still have limits on the number of ratings required before a photo could appear in a given TRP time category. So it makes sense to let people know what their total number of ratings was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoz Posted March 19, 2008 Author Share Posted March 19, 2008 If someone recieve critique at the moment, one can easily find that out. And read it. On the other hand, who has time to regulary check all photos on his portfolio to see if ratings have changed. Mission impossible that is. Instead of total count you can display two other attributes. 1) date of last rating (refresh every 48 hours or so)- to get rid of that feeling that picture is stalling 2) improvement rate 1-10 rating - one star 10-25 rating - two stars 25-50 - rating - three stars 50-100 four star 100- five star p.s.: none of my pictures reach three stars, but of course there are photographers out there who has lot's of five stars star improvement can also be shown like new critique (after 48 hours - enough time that bots finish their job) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 The star thing is too grade school, bad idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now