Apathy in ratings

[timzeipekis]

Maybe turn the ratings into critiques, more specific rating system such as composition, tones, sharpness, focus, etc. These are just random categories off the top off my head but you get the point. That way, anonymous raters would have to spend a little more time viewing and this might cut down on "flyby" rating. On the receiving end, when someone got a 3, they would know why and this would eliminate the complaining on that end. just a thought........

[neciphoto]

Lex I do agree with the points you make I should try not to take this too seriously. I was just quite supprised when the wave of low ratings appeared about the same time as if by a group and I saw the following:-

 

Finally, of the ratings listed, 6 are from new members. As a measure against abuse, ratings from very recently registered members are not counted in the overall averages and totals until the moderators have had an opportunity to review them.

 

If you look here also a shot by luigi

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=7463262

 

has a similar pattern appearing about the same time. From 5 new members.

 

 

I do appretiate feedback but an anon rate with no comment isn't really feedback especially if one rates a 3/3 he should leave a comment if it is to mean anything. Anyway I think enough said about this Uncle Lex is not a cheapskate, LOL! :-)

[joshroot]

When you see a pattern of new ratings like that on a lot of images, chances are good that it is someone trying to mess with the system. Such attacks are much more rare now that we installed the captcha, but someone who is willing to put in the time can still screw with it.

 

If you see this sort of thing, notify abuse@photo.net.

 

I will remove those ratings.

[neciphoto]

Thanks Josh really appretiate it. I see that they have been removed.

[joshroot]

Keep in mind that not ALL low ratings are bogus. In fact, I would say that these days a vast majority of low ratings are from legit users who simply do not like the image at hand.

 

But when you see a steady pattern it is worth letting someone know.

[zparticle]

I just received a bunch of 7 ratings and I know there are far better pictures on here than mine. I'm not complaining but 7 (especially for aesthetics) seems like it should be reserved for EXTREEMLY good pictures.

[Apurva Madia]

Getting good ratings and more ratings is also a function of networking.

[tampabaybrokers]

I personelly think that any image that garners ratings should be viewed as a success ,As your presenting your work to your peers ,(not the general public who is far more forgiving ) and taking an image reviewing total ratings and critiques gives you an idea of the images ability to catch and hold the publics interest ...I do believe some kind of incentive for those who activly particapate should be available ...such as the limit on 7s should be based on how many images a member rates ...with a starting number of say 4 or 5 per hundred and adding one per additional hundred images rated for use during that particular 24 hour period ....To me viewing images created in england ,like necif s , or cherylns ,I look for and find photographers who consistantly contribute high quality images with an added incentive for those using cannon equipment as that is what i use ...and for first time I am able to view and gauge my images impact on peers from around the globe ...this i find very attractive ...I do not understand why some only rate , or only critique ...or worse yet only post images and do not rate ...Since 29 feb this year , ive rated 14,917 images for 2712 photographers , many of these i left a small critique of what i liked or did not like in that image .....Well I have recieved ratings from 679 photographers for a total of 4660 ratings with a little over 6200 visits to my home page ....

As to the recent bout of attacks from anonimous raters ...the black crowned night heron i had rated 4 days ago that so far has 48 ratings when i first put it up with in minutes i had 4 3-3s and 2 3-4s all anonamous and all so called new members , with in 12 hours those ratings that were not added in total numbers were subtracted ......perhaps another way to create incentive amoung members would be to allow members who activly particapate to subtract 1 anonamous rating per 300 images they rate with at least 150 written comments ,or something like this, images to have this deduction would only be those in the last 24 hours stopping any from dramitily changing those issued in past ..however it would create incentive for those in the now time frame ,, to rate and critique a lot and you can reduce some of the negatives to place your image a little higher in ratings section ...This might help induce many to particapate far more than they currently do ...just an idea ....

 

ps ..you would be amazzed at the crap you accumulate over 2 years ...I emptyed office last wednesday for the new tile , and so far have brought 3 truck loads of stuff to our new storage bin ...yet the rest of stuff still will not fit ....yikes ..

[tampabaybrokers]

If top 25 image holders knew that by rating say 300 images they could reduce one anonamous rating on that image some might take advantage , say ten and they each do 600 images to reduce 2 anons the communtity just gained 6000 ratings between just those 10 who particapated .....Also if admin could devise a way to have perhaps a small icon that would say # 1 for 3 hours in top 24 hour braket ...+ # 1 for X amount of time in the top images last 3 days , & same thing for # 1 last week for x time ...this icon would be added to that images info ....Little things like this might induce far more to particapate and rate and critique many more images ,...

[RobertChura]

To answer Gordons reference to my rating vrs. comments.

 

"If I understand Robert correctly the only acceptable form of rating is to anonymously rate other members work,

provided you do not know their work and have not ever acknowledged a rating you have received from them with

either a rating or a comment.. With parameters that narrow I would not be doing much participating."

 

The point I have is that a low percentage of people are rating. I would like to encourage people to participate

in any way they want.

 

I prefer to be anonymous when rating because I don't want to be a victim of retaliation or undue praise.(which I

have had happened to me) I guess

I would be the only member that would complain about a 7 7 rating on one of my photos if it was unjustified and I

have received some but I don't complain about the 3 3 either. Being impartial (in my opinion) allows an honest

critique. My comments are honest and sometimes blunt but most of the time enough has been said about some images

and I try to select images that I feel need constructive remarks or praise. I have found that often I cannot

express myself in a way not to be misconstrued so the rating system is fast and less problems.

 

There once was a member (AZ ?) that had made over 40,000 ratings and they were usually very low unless he was

impressed with a particular image. If you got a over a 4 from him you were in the top 20% and a remark was in the

top 2%. After many complaints from members about "low ratings" from him I checked his ratings and I agreed with

him about 90% of the time.But he participated and was consistent.

 

I feel that praise has never helped me improve but honest constructive critiscm has.

 

When I first entered a photo in a camera club image that I thought was great most of my pals said "Looked Great'

but I showed it to a particular member that didn't realize it was mine he basically called it a snapshot. I was mad

as hell for a while till I realized he was correct and has been a source for honest critiques for many years.

[gordonjb]

Robert ;

 

I was only suggesting that it is possible for many people to have a multitude of approaches to the CF and most definitely did not intend my comment to suggest any shortcomings in your approach. I agree with everything in your above post. I far prefer an honest and blunt comment to gratuitous praise. I stand some chance of furthering my knowledge if the blunt comment is specific and constructive. "Wow that's a great shot" might boost the ego but it does not advance the skills. The majority of helpful and critical comments I get are from people who have not rated the image on which they have left their critique. That just happens to be my experience.

 

As for the ratings themselves, I think something useful can be gleaned from looking at the numbers an image provokes. I tend to look at the overall average numerical response. I am inclined to put less weight on a 3/3 or 7/7 if it is considerably out of line with the pack. I also agree that the ratings are very often much too high. I think this is to some degree the result of a rating system in need of overhaul. Any system will, too some degree, end up being a popularity contest in the end, with popular members getting higher ratings irregardless of the quality of a specific image.