Anonymous ratings.Suggestion.

[stane]

I do belive that anonymous ratings should be time limited. You could rate an

image anonymously only in first 12 hours. Secondly. Highest and lowest rates

should be erased (like in ski jumping). For example. If you recive couple of

7's, few 6/6, few 6/5, and one 3/3, than one 7/7 and 3/3 should be erased. I

really do not understand, that somebody go through all those pictures after 3

days and rate anonymously 3/3 an image, which lowest rating was 5/5. I am

conviced that this is done deliberately. Guy must have a lot of time.

[joshroot]

Each of the low ratings you have received on your recent images have come from a different user. There is no evidence that someone was going through your images and rating low on purpose. Some people just do not like your work. That's life.

[stane]

Of course that many people do not like my work. If this is shown in the rates of many, that's OK. I don't have any problem with it. But that doesn't mean that limiting time for anonymous rating and deleting extreme rates ( low and high) is bad idea. Or is it?

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>"But that doesn't mean that limiting time for anonymous rating and deleting extreme rates ( low and high) is bad idea. Or is it?"</i><P>

There is essentially already a de facto time limit on anonymous ratings. The sheer volume of images being posted for critique seems to result in most images being dropped from the "Rate Photos" queue or pushed so far to the bottom after about 24 hours or so that very few people see them in a rating session. There are recent complaints about <b>not enough</b> ratings being received because of the above, so I don't think limiting the time exposure even further than what presently exists is going to help that situation. Remember that only anonymous ratings count for the default view of the Top Photos page, and you need a minimum number of ratings to be included on those pages.<P>

I <b>think</b> that I have observed that images that receive a lot of good ratings initially (and thus make the Top Photos 24 hr and 3 day sorts) seem to hang around in the queue longer, but that may only be my perception and not reality (just as there is a persistent <b>perception</b> that there is a single "3/3 guy" rating everything that gets uploaded to the site, or that when 3/3's are given that "this is done deliberately" to lower an average).<P>

Dropping a single rating from both extreme ends of the scale might be a good idea, provided that there are a minimum number of ratings received before that happens, i.e. you need to get 10 before 2 are dropped. But averaging the scores has essentially the same effect. I think there would be considerably fewer complaints (and a lot less hurt feelings) if the individual anonymous ratings were not visible at all (except to the administrators) in the "Summary of ratings" table, and instead only displayed as an aggregate score on the "Ratings breakdown" page for individual photos, i.e. 'Ratings Rec'd = 6, Ave = 4.9/5.2'. I think that may be something Josh is considering for a revamped ratings system, but I don't speak for Josh or the anyone else who has to deal with this unwieldy beast. :-)

[bobatkins]

I think I would agree that the best solution to the anonymous rating "problem" would simply be to allow only administrators and moderators access the information as to who was rating who and what the individual ratings were. The anonymous rating system is widely misunderstood and gives rise to many unwarranted complaints as well as (apparantly), many sleepness nights.

 

Anyone wishing others to know that they had spent time reviewing an image could simply add a critique.

 

Ratings are like sausages. They taste better if you don't know all the details of how they are made.

[aepelbacher]

You know ... I have to say that the idea of removing (or, say, "not counting toward the top photo computations") the top and bottom ratings sounds like a great idea. For the same reason it's done in sports. That would eliminate the so-called "outliers"...

[lex_jenkins]

Lou Ann, that won't make the folks who get only one or two anonymous ratings very happy. If they get only two ratings, both would be tossed out under that scheme.

 

Keep in mind that some of the complaints aren't about the perceived quality of the ratings, but the quantity. Some folks simply want to know whether their photos are making enough of an impression for anyone, even an anonymous viewer, to bother to leave some evidence of opinion.

[stane]

OK. There are reasons pro and con regarding deleting high and low ratings. What about stoping anonymous ratings after reciving 5 anonymos rates? If anonymous rating is (quote)"widely misunderstood", than problem could be in rating itself.

[aepelbacher]

Lex, nothing makes folks very happy. :-)

[louis_blair]

I just received 3 anonymous ratings...72 hours after posting a photo : Close formation (now deleted))I received ratings so that the picture went from very good to real bad.The problem is :1 not enough overall ratings and 2 a new(?) problem of late anonymous killing raters...I always received some bad ratings on my pictures but it was random in time, now it seems there's a concentration of bad rating more than 2-3 days after posting.Did anything change that allows that now?

[lex_jenkins]

Holiday weekend? Perhaps some folks who normally use the anonymous ratings queue were doing other things this weekend.

 

Do you routinely upload a photo for critiques and ratings, delete it if the ratings and unsatisfactory and upload it again? I've seen a few people do this, presumably hoping to get better ratings the second or third time around. This can be confusing to the viewer. I tend to skip over photos I've already seen during the past few days in order to avoid the possibility of rating it more than once (which I think the system excludes anyway).