The Purpose of Ratings

[jarred mcdaniel]

What is the exact purpose of a rating system for images? The most specific use that I can conceive is to identify

photographs that may be desirable for prominent placement within the site. I suppose that an alternate use may be

to encourage those individuals whose images the critic finds compelling/pleasing/inventive/etc. to continue in

their work (or conversely, to discourage those whose work one finds unpleasantly

disturbing/unappealing/unimaginative/etc. from continuing).

 

My motivation for asking is that it seems to me after I have received many ratings (and about 2 total comments)

from my posts, I have come to realize that the ratings mean nothing to me. Certainly, it is a bit of a wound to

my pride to receive a 3/3 or a 4/4, but in the end what does that actually communicate to me about my

photography? That I should be more original? There is not a single original photograph that exists on this

website. All of these images have their roots, influences, sometimes exact (if inadvertent) copies that have

previously existed before the creation of this website. Does it tell me that my aesthetic does not match with

certain individuals? I will hereafter post for critique only. In that case, if I get two comments, at least I

have been educated by two individuals, and not confused by many 'anonymous' users.

[Matt Laur]

<i>There is not a single original photograph that exists on this website</i>

<br><Br>

You must have spent a <i>long</i> time looking. Conservatively, if you looked at one image <i>every second</i>, for

24 hours a day, you'd be well over a month before you saw even a portion of them. Never the less, let's stipulate that

there is no such thing as an original photograph here. And since there are literally millions of them, it seems fair - to

extrapolate, right? - that there are no original photographs anywhere, ever. Neither notion is valid.

<br><Br>

Here's an analogy I've used before:

<br><br>

Consider this something like a community center where you've been granted some wall space, in a high-traffic area,

to hang some of your work. You even get to have a stool, right there next to it. And you get to sit on that stool, and

watch as people walk by your work. Rather than get numeric ratings, you get to count how many times your work

gets a glance, a second glance, a nod of the chin, or even (6/6 !) someone stopping and actually studying it for a bit.

Perhaps two people actually take notice of YOU, and comment. Much as has already happened to you, as you say.

<br><br>

Want some valuable criticism and feedback from other photographers, rather than just some vaguely quantifiable

head nods as statistics? Walk across the room to where some <i>other</i> photographers are sitting, and actually

deliver what it is you say you want. You might be surprised how many of them reciprocate. As I write this, I see that

44 people have rated your images, and that you've not rated one of anyone elses. I see also that you've made 10

requests to have your images critiqued, and you've offered up a grand total of one to someone else. Do you see the

pattern, here?

[joshroot]

<i>"The most specific use that I can conceive is to identify photographs that may be desirable for prominent placement within the site."</i>

<p>

This is a common misconception. At one time ratings were important for this reason. But these days we have many other ways we could identify good images if the only reason was to find some for the site itself. And we would not have to deal with all the complaints.

<p>

<i>"What is the exact purpose of a rating system for images?"</i>

<p>

Too many people look for too much out of the rating system. Asking random people for opinions will always give you random results. Internet voting should never be used as anything but a straw poll in regards to the quality or popularity of a particular image. If you want dedicated knowledgeable consistent critique, pay for a portfolio review by someone who is a proven teacher.

 

<p>Take the ratings for what they are, just one of many ways to gauge reaction to your images by the public.

[joshroot]

Thread moved to Site Feedback forum.

[tampabaybrokers]

What the ratings system mean to me .

I like the analagy made by Matt , with the communtiy center ,I look at it as this with 1000s of people posting images , with new images being presented virtually each minute , any one who takes a moment to look at and rate an image for you by itself is a victory ,,youve grabbed thier attention ...and your image was unique enough to cause them to stop and rate perhaps evan offer advice /constructive critisism ,,, however many seem to forget ,,no one gets paid to rate your image ! Life ,as this site is a 2 way street , act with patience and persistence and go out and give others what you desire ...a numerical rating to give you an idea how well others ( Photgraphers ) actually feel about that image ....however always remember this , your recieving a critique rating from someone who does this work like you ....which will almost always be lower than the general public would rate an image ...And those who you take the time to actually make a comment and offer ideas , or praise or critism ,maybe not the first time but eventually most will read and see your rating and critique and come to your site and do the same ....I normally rate a minimum of 10 images for each image I request a critique for and then simply average the numbers + critiques I recieve per image to give an idea of how well the public will or wont like an image ....As the old saying goes .....

Give and you shall recieve .....

[gordonjb]

Josh In the brief time I have been at PN I have observed you answering this same question again and again. My hat goes off to you t in that you continue to respond with a sincere reply each time.

 

As far as straw polls go, PN offers up a good one from which I can in fact glean occasionally useful information. For a bunch of internet strangers, Pnuters are surprisingly on the mark most of the time.

[wood]

I agree with Bob Aktins on this issue. The ratings system is a popularity contest. And I would add that they are a snapshot approach, especially with the recent number of photos submitted for ratings. A single image does not usually stay in the ratings queue as long as it would have a few years ago, and people are more likely to skip images if they are not within their realm of interest. As far as comments, Jeffery is right - give and you shall receive.

[lex_jenkins]

Adding to Matt's community center analogy, we also have the occasional person walk in, stand in the middle of the huge room and jump up and down yelling "Look at me! Look at me! Why is nobody looking at me?" rather than mingling with other folks in the usual socially acceptable manner. Only a handful of people do this on occasion, but it seems to echo so loudly in this big room they give the illusion that a lot of folks are complaining about not being noticed.

 

Please 'scuse me while I go sweep up the beer cans and cigar butts after the poker game in the back. (In case you ever wondered what moderators do.)

[tampabaybrokers]

hmmmm hope its at least good beer ..!

[carlwakefield]

I agree with Jeffrey and Robert.

Saying that one of the pleasures in photography is showing and seeing others photographs and photo.net is very good for that. I have seen many great pictures, gained lots of ideas and learned from others. More so than by flicker or pbase or other sites.

Some people are so full in achiving placings in top rated pictures that I believe they marks 3 and 4 to achieve there goals. Saying that photo.net allows us to show and be seen and to see others work.

I think we can be happy with that. As Jeffrey says if you join in and comment and critique others work they will comment yours. If you add deaper honest crique and comments you will get honnest critque back. If you find thirty photographers who you support they will support you. It makes a club in a club.

The rating systems works because you look at others photographs and they look at yours that's what its about. Even the 3 are good because if the pictures bad you know it yourself and if its good you know someones else knew it as well.

Enjoy sharing.

You will never stop the low raters but you will see and been seen.

[jarred mcdaniel]

Matt,

 

You are correct in asserting that I have never rated another's photos. When I have seen a photograph that strikes me, I leave a comment instead. As I described in my post, that to me is more helpful, therefore I do it for other people as I have opportunity. Why would I give someone a rating, anonymous or otherwise, if it does not help me to improve myself? Perhaps I misunderstood this site as one that primarily functions in the respect that you mentioned of "going over to where some other photographers are sitting". That is what I thought I had been doing with my photographs.

 

Lex,

 

I certainly don't mean to be complaining "look at me," and hope that's not the impression that my question gives. I will work to comment more and find a more "socially acceptable" way of requesting criticism of my photographs (which is what I thought the "request critique" forum was there for, in all honesty).

 

Oh, and by the way, I have no problem with ratings being used to identify images to display more prominently. It only makes sense to use that as one tool, in my opinion.

[tampabaybrokers]

jarred , I took a look at your page , and what i saw was that youve rated 0 images and made one comment on another image ....primary goal of this site is to review your peers work and have your work reviewed and scene, in a format that helps determine peoples reaction to an image , however if you do not rate and do not comment while on a daily basis posting images for critique ,how many times do you think some one will rate an image for you when you do nothing for them ,,,,this site enables you to meet and learn some of the secrets of some really high quality photographers ,but it only works when all particapate ,,,pick a few people that you like there work , rate all 4 images comment on one or 2 and I think youll be pleasantly surprized as most will stop in rate and or critique your image for you ....Like any thing else the more you give .........The more you recieve ...good luck and hope this helps towards increasing your ratings and critiques ., look forward to seeing some more images from you .

regards Jeff

[jarred mcdaniel]

Carl,

 

BTW, just looked at your page. Left a comment regarding your 'Yogi' folder. One of these days I'll have to make a 'Bentley' folder!

[jarred mcdaniel]

As has been pointed out by several people, I had previously only commented on one other photo, which surprised me as well (I guess those mental comments you make while surfing through the critique forum don't actually appear!). One comment doesn't exactly help inform anyone else either about their photography, does it? I have made an effort today and will keep making an effort to comment on more of the photos I view. Thanks for the instruction.

 

Jarred

[Matt Laur]

Jarred: Why rate? Let's say you come across an image that you think really challenges you, or that inspires you to

provide some insight, and learn something in the process of critiquing it. Wouldn't it be nice if that found treasure was

also discovered by some other people? People who might also, then SEE your critique, and engage you in

conversation about your own work? Highly rated images become more visible. They start more conversations. That's

why.

<br><br>

In that metaphorical room full of photographers, it's the differece between having a conversation in the center of the

room, where others might notice it and choose to participate, and having the conversation out in the parking lot. You

can use both your anonymous and your non-anonymous ratings abilities to propel certain works more directly into

the community's discussions. When your own images are thusly rated, you'll also see the benefits of a higher ratio of

comments, and the birth of more long-term associations with other photographers in this space. Rate, and shine a

brighter light on work that you think ought to be noticed by more people.

<br><br>

Rate anonymously so that the galleries powered by anonymous ratings (the default mode, for people who just

happen to stop by) can reflect the tastes of a broader audience, and thus raise the bar. I know that you think there is

no such thing as originality, and thus would rate ALL images a 3 or worse in that regard, but surely you can find

images with aesthetic qualities that might - just by being seen - help others learn?

[lex_jenkins]

Jarred, nope, I was singling you out. Just pointing out that this occurs occasionally and creates the mistaken impression that there is widespread dissatisfaction with a system that actually works pretty well.

 

Since March this year I've begun participating again in the ratings and critiques, most giving and receiving. It started out as an experiment to see whether the complaints about the system were justified. In my opinion, after 10 years here, the complaints are largely unjustified. The system works pretty well.

 

Some folks just need tougher hide and to realize that these are valid, if not always well informed, expressions of individual opinions. And the numerical ratings *are* legitimate opinions, reduced to a simple numerical expression of how the viewer reacted to the photo. It saves a lot of time over writing redundancies like "This is an average photo, well exposed and composed, but nothing special." By rating a photo 3/3, 4/4 or some variation of those numbers for originality and aesthetics, the viewer can give feedback much more quickly to a greater number of photographers who have specifically requested feedback.

 

Keep in mind that there are tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of photographers on photo.net, with many thousands of photos submitted every week for feedback. The vast majority of them either specifically solicit numerical ratings or give tacit approval by participating in the system.

 

In comparison, I also occasionally participate on Urbis, a forum for writers, usually on the poetry categories and mostly on haiku, tanka, senryu and related forms. As brief as those forms are, it's very difficult to critique anywhere near the volume of work submitted because actual written critiques, not merely compliments and offhand remarks, are expected. Unqualified remarks from people who obviously know little or nothing about a genre of writing may be dismissed. People writing critiques are themselves rated on the quality of their critiques. It's a very demanding, exclusive system that ensures relatively high quality critiques, but also a very low number of critiques. I consider myself fortunate to receive a single qualified critique on anything I write.

 

So count yourself lucky that you receive any feedback of any kind here on photo.net. When you consider the overwhelming ocean of images we are barraged with daily here and elsewhere, if you get a single rating you are doing pretty well. At least the viewer took the time to offer some type of feedback.

[jarred mcdaniel]

Matt,

 

Just because I believe that there are no truly original photographs out there in the strict sense doesn't mean that I would give "3's" to all photos in that column (1's would be more appropriate-- just kidding). Surely some are more original than others. Even so, I happen to like many "unoriginal" shots personally more than some more avant garde photos out there that are personally unappealing. And BTW, our response actually spoke to my actual question-- I was not sure that there was an actual effect of anonymous ratings in terms of more visibility, etc., and even in this post I seem to have gotten conflicting answers.

 

Lex,

 

Thanks for the explanation. We may have different opinions about the benefit of saving time for writing redundancies vs. anonymously giving a 3/3, but I appreciate your point of view. It is not the anonymous low ratings that irk me, but what I perceived to be a lack of instructive value in unexplained numerical ratings-- heck, if I only got 1/1's, I'm still going to frame some of the photos and hang them around my house! :)

[Matt Laur]

Jarred: If you go to the "Top Rated Photos" gallery, and don't do anything to alter the search/display critieria, you will ONLY see images that have been rated anonymously by at least five people who are not brand new members. Since many people don't modity the nature of their searching/viewing in that area, that should immediately tell you how much of an impact the anonymous ratings system has on getting images seen. Comments and critiques, of course, tend to pile up more on images that are seen in that way. And people READING those comments and critques are then more likely to follow the trail back to the critiquer's own page, and see what's what. It's not the only way to use the system, but it's an important way in which it functions.

[lex_jenkins]

Another reason some viewers prefer to offer anonymous ratings rather than attributed ratings or written critiques or comments is because some photographers who ostensibly request critiques in truth cannot handle anything less than effusive praise.

 

Those are the folks who flock to Flickr for the glittery animated "gold medal" GIFs and special invitations to exclusive mutual admiration societies where by-gosh you'd better give us only unfettered praise or face the wrath of the jilted lover of ego strokes.

 

A few days ago I critiqued a photo that in all honesty should not have been submitted for critique. It was a textbook example of bad photography from the most basic Kodak handbook of decades past: the subject perfectly centered, both ends cut off. The photographer had better photos in her portfolio, demonstrating she knew the difference between good and bad photography. My critique may have been blunt but it was honest and fair. She retaliated in a rather juvenile fashion by picking one photo out of my portfolio and trying to find nitpicking silly faults.

 

Doesn't bother me. I have a thick hide and thick skull to match. Nobody has to like my photos. I put 'em up there for ratings, critiques, comments, and dumbass remarks just like thousands of others here. But some folks take this stuff a bit too personally. The long history of photo.net has proven time after time that some people cannot handle the honest critiques they claim to want.

 

That's another valid reason for the anonymous ratings. It's just a shorthand way of expressing that the viewer found the photo lacking in some way without having to worry about immature retaliatory strikes from angst-ridden artistes.

 

I would support the incorporation of a short checklist which could offer - again, with complete anonymity - specific reasons why the viewer found the photo lacking: composition, exposure, etc. Granted, the photographer may have intended the photo to break the rules, and has the chops to back up the unorthodox choice. In some cases, criticizing a photo based solely on technical flaws is the most boneheaded example of how some folks are not qualified to indulge in artistic criticism. But at least the poor angsty artiste would know why a particular numbskull didn't like a photo.

[jarred mcdaniel]

Thanks, fellas. I think I understand the way it works a little better now.

 

Jarred

[lex_jenkins]

Good! You'll do well. You're already way ahead of the folks who refuse to even consider the complexities of this issue.

[tampabaybrokers]

jarred ,

as a side note the more times you rate ,and comment ( not anonimously now ) that link as ohers view the image many will click to ee your work ,as you offered the critique ,bringing more members to view your images .....This works I know ....! Look at my page ....I began as a member feb 29th 2008 ......Now look at total views of my page , close to 6000 now ......with close to 5000 critiques and ratings ,...some images are a challenge trying to identifie what people do not like but on average youll get some pretty good ideas .,, I went through your images and rated all .....Yet you have not stopped in to take a look around my gallerys ....Not a problem ,however i do this as a test on many members I will rate each image submitted for a week or so if they do not stop in and reciprocate by rating a few or commenting , then i stop rating them ...Number 1 thing to remember is anyone who stops in and leaves thier name ....go there look around rate 1 or 2 based on what tehy did for you ...and before you know it youll have 30 or 40 who will look at and rate your images ...However youll get what you put into this site ,...particapate and others will also ,good luck ..

 

"I would support the incorporation of a short checklist which could offer - again, with complete anonymity - specific reasons why the viewer found the photo lacking: composition, exposure, etc. Granted, the photographer may have intended the photo to break the rules, and has the chops to back up the unorthodox choice. In some cases, criticizing a photo based solely on technical flaws is the most boneheaded example of how some folks are not qualified to indulge in artistic criticism. But at least the poor angsty artiste would know why a particular numbskull didn't like a photo."

 

Lex I think it would be a huge assistance to both new and old members if when they rated anonimously if it was spelled out a few basic items for rating a 3-3 or 4-4 or 5-5 ....I think many members just starting out are afraid of incorrectly assesing an image ..so they do not do so as they feel they are unqulified to do so ...So making it as easy and self explained would probibly improve this system ...I believe that if it were spelled out , we would all see many less 3-3s ...I also agree with carl ,that many images are intentally sabatoged by members so intent on getting thier images to the top they will do such things ....there is a very good example if you look at the images i posted over last 4 days .....look at images of all 3 blackcrowned night herons i have posted over this time frame , then look at where my images where in the ratings from yeterday all 4 images on the first 2 pages .....then the barrage of anonimous 3-3s come in the next day /...I would trully appreate your input on my last blackcrowned night heron which currenltly has 2 anon 3-3s 2 anon 4-4s and one 5 ....

but in my eyes its an excellant example of what carl was talking about ...

[lex_jenkins]

Jeffrey, I responded on one of those photos you mentioned. It took several minutes to compose my thoughts well enough to offer a reasonably thorough, constructive, tough and hopefully helpful critique. In all honesty, I think a 3/3 rating succinctly states what I needed two full paragraphs to say using words.

 

Frankly, I don't have time to do that very often. If I did, I wouldn't have time to rate many photos, which was my main purpose in re-entering the ratings/critique fray in March this year. I decided to focus my participation primarily on the anonymous ratings queue in an effort to dispel the notions that it is run by bots and revenge raters.

[tampabaybrokers]

thank you for taking the time to explain and help me see this , I joined this site to learn and I have learned more here in the last 90 days of membership ,than i have in years of shooting on my own...I am still trying to determine some of the best images to have rated as many i do not like, many others seem to like ...Difficult but entertaining problem to diagnos and correctly identfy images that will both catch attention and are technicly perfect ...especially with birds in motion ...thanks again

Jeff

[jayanti]

I do not take the ratings too seriously, but I do not ignore them at all. I have learnt a lot from PN in the last three months and the rating has played a quite important part there. The ratings give a general idea about how my photograph is being attended to amidst a real throng of photos and accepted also. If there are some undue (according to my opinion) 3/3s , there are some 7/7 s also equally undue. My personal feeling is that, on the average you get something that you ought to get, if not on one single photograph, at least on the whole.

 

Comments, like rating, are sometimes helpful, but sometimes just niceties. Often a rating reflects analysis on the part of the rater - specially when the aesthetics and originality ratings differ. Ratings are, I have found cryptic comments.

 

I understand the purpose of rating this way. Like we learn to talk properly in a social community --- you talk, most people are polite, sometimes rude also, sometimes they praise or insult you unreasonably, but on the whole you learn to socialize and interact properly. Each single interaction may not be meaningful, but the totality of experience is. That's exactly my feeling here - I receive others' reactions, express my reactions freely to others' pictures, and get enriched.