1-10 scale as opposed to 1-7

[yog_sothoth]

I miss the days of ratings going from 1-10 as opposed to 1-7. Given that only 3-7 counts, that is essentially a

1-5 scale. I would like some extra flexibility when rating photos. What are the chances of something like that

happening in the future?

[marshall]

Only management can answer, but my guess is "not good". I mean, what do you do with all the old ratings to translate them?

[bobatkins]

Slim to none is my guess.

 

I've long advocated a 6-10 scale though, for numerous psychological and sociological reasons.

 

There really are only 5 grades. Excellent, very good, good, average, below average.

 

If more rating levels were better, we'd allow ratings to 3 decimal places. "I'd give it 3.764....Rubbish, it's a least worth 3.782..."

[chris_werner]

I don't like ratings at all - I like qualitative feedback, both in this and life in general. With ratings it quickly becomes a fight over the numbers, and the underlying reasons get lost in the shuffle - either unsaid or unheard. Think job performance reviews as a real life comparison.

 

Call me a cynic. ;-)

[lex_jenkins]

The 1-10 scale didn't allow for an average rating. A 5 would be interpreted as below average, a 6 above average. The odd number scale allows for a middle number to be considered average. While most web based ratings systems use the 1-5 scale, the gist of the debate at the time photo.net adopted a new scale was that the 1-7 scale would allow raters to finesse their opinions between slightly below average, average and slightly above average.

 

Even the 1-7 scale didn't work in the minds of some people, so they had to be protected from seeing ratings lower than 3. Not satisfied with being no worse than merely competent or slightly below average, humans did what humans do: realizing that the system had been skewed, they jumped to the conclusion that a 3 now equals a 1. Therefore a 4 equals a 2, a 5 equals a 3 and nothing less than a 6 is acceptable because now a 6 equals 4.

 

Jimi Hendrix could write a song.

 

Personally, I think the system works well enough. Some folks simply cannot accept the possibility that anyone would find their photos merely competent. We've even seen complaints when someone's photo receives an "automatic 5/5".

 

A return to the 1-10 scale would simply shift the inflationary expectations. Any rating less than 8 would be perceived as unacceptable. Then some folks will demand fractions between 9 and 10. After that, we'll see complaints that a 9.27 is unacceptable and too many inconsiderate people are leaving "automatic 9.5/9.5 ratings".

 

Fiddling around with the scale is like reinventing the language. It obscures meaning rather than clarifying anything.

[soltani]

I don't like ratings either but It seems that anonymous rates (Forgetting about the abuse rates) are an honest measure. A 1-10 scale would make rating easier but people would probably only tolerate grades higher than 4. A 1-10 scale would probably be limited after implementation to 4-10 or 5-10, which gives more choices than the 6-10 scale. Yet I agree with Mr. Atkins that "numerous psychological and sociological reasons" exist for the 6-10 scale.<br>

What I have experienced lately though is that the number of anonymous rates has decreased. My requests of 12th and 10th of August got 2 and 0 anonymous rates respectively. Maybe the rating system is going to become a non-used feature by itself. Hope not.<br>

Regards. Ali.

[tonmestrom]

"Some folks simply cannot accept the possibility that anyone would find their photos merely competent"

 

So what? When your ego exceeds your talent you've got other things to worry about I should think. I know from

reading all those threads in the last few months that before people received hate mail and got flamed. Again, so

what? Ignore them, delete them or do with them whatever you like. They won't last anyway. As I understand it this

site is supposedly a platform for likeminded people who are given the opportunity to exchange ideas, feedback etc.

 

As it is now (at least in my opinion) a lot of people are just complaining, some are complaining while offering

constructive ideas, some are even actively writing comments/critiques. But most do complain about the current

rating system and what I fiind exceedingly more important the lack of sound feedback. Since that seems to be an

increasingly big problem for most that's something that needs to be adressed urgently. Not by admin, they can only

provide the tools (which are in need of improvement btw), but by each and everyone out there. As far as I can see

people here are way too friendly and to afraid to hurt eachothers feelings. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either,

you'll give and receive constructive feedback and don't complain if someone honestly feels and writes your work is

under par or you'll just have to accept the fact that you don't get (and can hardly expect) what you don't give.

Besides, if it would work that way you could rely more on the positive feedback.

 

And another thing. Most people here haven't a clue what a really harsh critique is, getting cut of by the knees and

confronted with the flaws in one's work. And even that doesn't matter as long as the purpose is to push you further

and make you better. Granted, this site has another population but come on, there is abolutely nothing wrong with

giving your honest opinion. I for one always welcome them, no matter how harsh.

 

And lastly, maybe we should not only discuss the score of rating but also setup a score for ranting ;-)

[lex_jenkins]

<i>"Most people here haven't a clue what a really harsh critique is, getting cut of by the knees and confronted with the flaws in one's work."</i><p>

 

That's for sure. I was fortunate enough to attend two journalism programs in college where my work was subjected to hard review but also offered very constructive mentoring. My writing before that process was embarrassingly bad. And it's worse now. Fortunately my editors spared me from public humiliation through a process of private humiliation.

 

My most memorable comment came from a copy editor at the Star-Telegram during the 1980s: "By the way, Lex? If you're going to cover the City of Grand Prairie, you might want to learn how to spell the name." Ouch. I'd sent copy with the spelling "Prarie."

[tonmestrom]

Lex, I know exactly what you mean. When I started at the acadamy I thought I could print a mean photo. Boy, was I

in for a surprise. I hadn't a clue about good devoloping or printing let alone fine art printing. They tore me a new one

more times than I wish to remember but it was never done with malice but always intended to push me further.

I'm by no means a writer, far from it so I know how hard it can be to write a good comment but it's not hard to be

honest about it. I'm lucky enough to know a lot of people here who write good and honest comments but given all

those complaints it seems they are far and few between, hence my earlier comment. Something has to change here,

so much is obvious.

[lex_jenkins]

Well, part of the difference is that our experiences in school were based on review by expert mentors. I don't know if you ever engaged in peer review among students but it wasn't much different from what we see in photo.net critiques and comments. Some are well informed, some aren't.

 

Our student peer review process in j-school was like that. Some folks would shoot from the hip with uninformed comments. Others would merely regurgitate what they'd learned in class, the equivalent to the "critiques" that emphasize the Golden Mean, Rule of Thirds, etc. Mere rote. But a few student peer reviews were extremely helpful because they were seeing things even our experienced instructors and advisers didn't.

 

It's a learning process for all of us, both as photographers and wanna-be critics. Most critiques and comments here are constructive. A tiny fraction are so outrageously stupid they're more entertaining than offensive. The rest are easily ignored.

 

Anyway, I regard ratings and critiques the way my cat regards attention. Any attention is good attention. Even when I hold her upside down, spin her around 'til she's dizzy and hide her favorite toys. She'll fuss and come back for more.

[yog_sothoth]

I suppose I would be happy if the 1's and 2's started counting again. I have been rating a lot lately, and I feel like I am pushed into giving things higher ratings than I would otherwise. When out-of-focus photos with poor contrast that have been digitally mutilated are 3/3's, anything in focus and not offensive gets a 4/4.

[tonmestrom]

"Anyway, I regard ratings and critiques the way my cat regards attention. Any attention is good attention. Even when I hold her upside down, spin her around 'til she's dizzy and hide her favorite toys. She'll fuss and come back for more"

 

LOL, that's what they call a nice metaphor

[derek_hofmann]

"The 1-10 scale didn't allow for an average rating."

 

If 50% of all photos submitted are above average, and 50% are below average, then how many does that leave to be just average?

 

One thing you could do is add a field that lets the rater choose their own base (5, 7, 10, etc.).

 

Or make the base the number of photos the person has rated, and the score be the ranking. Basically, a percentile system.

[lex_jenkins]

A writer's critique website I participate on experimented with user-generated fields for critiques and ratings. It's a disaster. During a recent critique session a teenaged girl created her own critique field that read something like "Does this poem suck?" and in order to offer a constructive critique it was necessary to answer that silly request with a rating of 1-10.

 

There must be limits to user-generated fields and tagging or the process falls apart.