Coincidence or slippery ratings manipulator?

[kahkityoong]

I believe my ratings are being very sneakily manipulated by someone. I had a reason photo called :The Island Arch http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00PxoE&photo_id=7455332&photo_sel_index=0

which received very high ratings overall - most of them were 7/7s. When I looked through the ratings I noticed a few 5/5 and 5/6 which

normally are not considered low. Under normal circumstances I would have ignored them. However, these few really stuck out like a sore

thumb compared to the ratings I had received. When I clicked on three of these 'low ratings' I found some very interesting accounts

 

(EDIT: Names removed by Josh)

 

How can it be a coincidence that the 3 lowest

raters on my photos are owned by accounts with no photos and the exact same rating patterns. I believe by giving out ratings that are not

too low, people are less likely to scrutinize them. Has anyone else noticed these irregularities?

[tampabaybrokers]

looks pretty suspicious to me ......looks like some one building a bank of 7-7s ...

[kahkityoong]

Actually I couldn't care less if someone is building up a bank of 7-7. What concerns me is the manipulation of MY ratings. I

know that people will say but they're 5's, that's above average but this is obviously an organized attempt to bring down a

photo that would be rating 6.5's. To me this behaviour is low and I do not appreciate it.

[will king]

Obviously these are bogus accounts created to boost or bury images. Hopefully Josh will investigate these accounts and remove them.

[anov]

Did they put comments at least?

[joshroot]

We will look into it.

 

In the future, if you need to point out specific users, I ask that you email abuse@photo.net and bring the issue up there. It isn't really fair to call other users out publicly without knowing the whole story. And the only people who can know the whole story are those of us with admin icons.

[kahkityoong]

"Did they put comments at least?" Yes, they did but under their real name while at the same time manipulating my ratings

with their bogus accounts.

[gordonjb]

The PhD in computer control engineering is an interesting twist. Maybe just a coincidence. If any of this conspiracy theory turns out to be correct it is amazing how competitively some people must take the TRP pages. Multiple fake accounts to bolster ones own ratings, while low balling the competitions ratings.... too strange.

[kahkityoong]

The conspiracy is correct, the bogus accounts have been deleted. I did go through abuse@photo.net first but got no response.

[joshroot]

You have to give people a chance to reply. We do not work 24/7 around here.

 

Also, not every email to abuse@photo.net gets a reply. Most times the issue is simple looked into and taken care of, or not. Depending on the circumstances at hand. There is simply just too much mail coming to the abuse dept to guarantee a reply to everyone. Would you rather have the abuse moderator spending his time answering email, or fixing problems?

[davidmccracken]

Perhaps we should do away with the ratings... except the 7/7 and then everyone would be happy. I keep saying that we are submitting our photos for <b>critique</b> and so critiques should be compulsory if someone wants to rate. If there are those out there who want to submit their photos for rating only, they should be given the chance to do so.

[lex_jenkins]

That won't work, David. If 5/5 ratings are now considered unacceptable enough to provoke suspicion, it's because the 6 and 7 ratings have become so inflated they're meaningless. Eventually, someone who receives only 7/7 ratings will begin to demand more. They'll want to know whether one person's 7/7 was as sincere as another's 7/7. They'll want 7/7+. Or 7/7 plus animated sparkly gold medal GIFs and special invitations to exclusive mutual admiration societies.

 

I don't dispute Kah Kit Yoong's observation that something was odd about those ratings. But the fact that it would even *occur* to him to question a 5/5 rating is a strong indication that simply because he expects perfection from himself in photography (as described in his photo.net bio), it's equally reasonable to expect only perfect ratings from viewers. It never would have occurred to me to challenge the validity of a rating, let alone a 5/5 rating.

[kahkityoong]

You're missing the whole point of this Lex and David. I don't give a stuff about the scores, this has nothing to do with my

concern. What I do not like is people personally targeting my work in a clandestine fashion so that they can get their photos

higher on the TRP. And my suspicions were vindicator. All 3 accounts have been deleted. Personally I am happy to do

away with the ratings. I am always my harshest critic, I don't need someone to score my work 7/7 to confirm that a shot is

good.

[lex_jenkins]

I understood your point. I just don't agree about the significance.

 

It appears that some person or persons tried to influence the ratings unethically. However, the impact of a handful of 5 ratings among mostly 6 and 7 ratings will have little or no impact. And diminishing the rating average of one photographer certainly won't automatically elevate a rival photographer's ratings. If anything adding ratings to your photos, even lower ratings, might have the effect of giving your photos greater prominence.

 

The top rated photos can be viewed using several search parameters. Prominence is not based solely on the highest average rating but also on the number of times a photo has been rated. So, at least in my observations, a photo with three ratings averaging between 6 and 7 may not have greater prominence than a photo that received 30 ratings averaging between 5 and 6.

 

So, depending on the search/display parameters used when viewing the TRP, someone who adds a bunch of 5 or lower ratings to your photo may actually be helping you gain greater prominence, since a handful of lower ratings will have relatively little impact on the overall average rating, but will add to the sum of ratings.

 

I've observed this phenomenon with my own photos. I don't participate often, usually only as an experiment. Recently a few photos I've submitted received a modest number of higher than average ratings, not enough to get my photos into the TRP. Then a couple of people would give them ratings of 3 or 4. This effectively boosted the sum of ratings sufficiently to ensure my photos made it into the TRP. So if the goal was to diminish my chances of getting recognition (which I seriously doubt), those average and below-average ratings had the opposite effect.

 

The only way to ensure a photograph does not make it into the TRP is to ignore it altogether. Giving a photo any ratings at all only serves to improve its prominence, depending on the search/display parameters.

[kahkityoong]

Okay it appears that I do not have an accurate grasp of the ratings system. In fact I have little interest in how it works. My

only intention was to highlight these 3 accounts, proven to be fake, were set up to give high ratings to one photographer

and low ratings to 'competitors'. The fact that my observations that led to the discovery of bogus accounts should be

appreciated rather than seen as a whinge about ratings. If this person had been giving lots of 3/3s, their activities would

have come to notice much earlier. It was my curiosity that led to him being busted. I just wanted to see the work of a

photographer who rated what I would class a competition standard photo at 5/5. I expected to find either a brilliant portfolio

or more likely some jealous hack. Instead I found a bogus account and when I clicked on the other two discovered quite

the can of worms.

[gordonjb]

Kah Kit

 

Given the number of 7s & 6s on your image, the 5/5 does stand out. I think you do understand the rating system. Those bogus numbers decrease your average. With the number of people rating your images you have no worry about getting the 5 ratings needed to qualify for the TRP. The dual intentions of the person who set up those fake accounts was to boast there average, the fraudulent accounts gave this person nothing lower than 7/7s and used the bogus account to lower yours and from what I can see, several other peoples, as there appear to be a rash of 5/5 ratings left behind on otherwise very highly rated photos this person had visited.

 

Lex; this is not about getting into the TRP, it is about cheating the system to get to the very top of the heap in the TRP. I would hope that after proper investigations have been made, if proof is found, that this persons account be deleted along with the bogus accounts and all their ratings. I am still amazed that someone would go to such lengths.

[lex_jenkins]

Gordon, please don't fan the flames of a non-existent fire.

 

Yes, it's entirely likely someone or some persons tried to manipulate Kah Kit Yoong's photo ratings. However, it won't work, for the reasons I described.

 

Adding ratings can only contribute to the prominence of a photo, depending on the search/display parameters used to view the TRP. This isn't a theory. It's a fact. I've seen it on my own photos, some of which would never have made it to the TRP if not for two or three folks adding ratings of 3 or 4. There's more than one way to view the TRP. While some folks regard only the highest average, the sum and other parameters significantly impact the prominence and sorting.

 

If your one and only personally acceptable standard for considering one's prominence on the TRP is highest average, then yes, a few cleverly inserted ratings that are higher than the global average but lower than the specific average for a given photo can indeed influence the prominence. But I have not seen any display or search parameters on photo.net that will consistently display the TRP *only* by ranking them by highest average. No matter how you fiddle with the parameters, some photos will remain on page 1 while others will be shuffled in and out, sometimes appearing on page 1, sometimes buried a few pages in.

[gordonjb]

Lex; Thanks for the clarification. .... most helpful. Of course you are correct that lowering someone else's average while raising your own would have no bearing on the TRP.

[lex_jenkins]

Well, I'm not absolutely certain about that, Gordon. It's possible that such subtle ratings manipulations could influence the prominence of photos on the TRP. But I haven't been able to produce this effect consistently no matter which display/search parameters I try. There doesn't appear to be a parameter that will consistently display the TRP *only* from the top down, highest rated photos first, following in strict order of ratings average. If anyone *is* able to find such a display/search parameter I'd sure like to see it.

 

No matter which parameters I've used it's likely the first photo displayed will have a 6.34/6.57 rating, followed by one with a 5.97/6.16, followed by a 6.81/4.87, then a 7/6.99, and so on. Who knows. It's a mystery.

[gordonjb]

That's one of the thing I like about PN it's full of mysteries... keeps me guessing :-)

 

Thanks for the info.

[kahkityoong]

I think these bogus accounts would be eliminated if it were compulsory for all raters to have a gallery or confirmed by a

valid credit card.

[adrian_bandolon]

i'm new here in PN......i'm just wondering what the TRP is?......thanks....

[kahkityoong]

TRP = top rated photos

[mirkal]

Kah Kit Yoong,

It looks to me reading all responses that other Photonet members in very gentle way try to explain you this is a democratic forum and anyone can rate photos according his own criteria. You can only complain or ask for explanation if rating is unusually low (say 1/1, 2/2 or so), please check Photonet rules. You have very high ratings and with all justice, your work is very creative but it doesn’t mean rating 5 is a bad one! Somebody mentioned building 7/7´s bank and I’m convinced he was pointing to you. Photonet is not about competition, it is about learning, making friends and having fun so relax and forget low ratings, there would be always somebody who will give you lower rating as you would like to get. BTW, for blurred water I wouldn’t give higher then O5 rating anyway and it is not intentional manipulation just to make it clear, there are tons of blurred water shots on web and in photographic books but I gave you some 7´s for aesthetic as you deserve such high rating. In my opinion overall ratings on Photonet are just too high anyway, 6/6 and higher are quite common and I don’t think if somebody will get only 7/7 or similar this could motivate him to think about his work. Oppositely, I do believe and welcome low ratings as these makes me stop and think what I did wrong, don’t you.

[kahkityoong]

Miroslav, with all due respect you have no idea what is going on. This was not a complaint about low ratings. I suggest you go back and READ what the thread was all about as you have absolutely NO CLUE. The thread was about an individual using three accounts to undermine my ratings while building a bank of 7/7s for himself. This has all been confirmed and the bogus accounts deleted by admininstration. And you have completely misinterpreted the responses of the other Pnet members. Once again I suggest you actually read the thread carefully. And then again if you still don't get it.