Anonymous rating

[swghosh]

I think anonymous rating option should be removed from Photo.net. Only anonymous raters rates 3/3 or less. If any

photograph is bad to that extent obviously he/she is free to rate even 1/1 but why should there be an option to hit

one from behind a wall? It’s really ridiculous. I really eager to know the person who is giving me 3/3,2/2, 1/1 and want

learn from his/her photographs.

[lex_jenkins]

There are dozens of very recent threads discussing this issue and many more over the years. Please read them for a full understanding of the issue before reaching any conclusions. These discussions may not change your mind, but at least you will be better informed about the matter.

 

Try to maintain some perspective on this issue. Your public user profile shows that you have given many ratings of 1, 2 and 3 to other photographers. Because ratings of 1 and 2 are not seen by those photographers, your own ratings given to them are, in fact, anonymous.

 

Valid reasons exist for this system. Please read the previous discussions.

[manuel barrera houston,]

it is the leaders that control the numbers, ever wonder how a three can appear several days after you posted the

photo? I would have to go on forever in the rate photo feature to go back that far:( he who controls the board control

the world, well at least the world in which the photos exist.

 

My proposal is that one person is limited to 3 3/3's per week and also limited to 3 7/7 per week, or we can do like

olympics and throw out the lowest and highest number out of each 10 ratings posted. lex have i given any 1 or 2's, 3

yes, look to see how other people rate and notice that they rate in high 3's or very low 4s I may do it for the heck of

it.

[tonmestrom]

The quality of any photo,and by extension the photographer can't be derived from a number. It's about craftsmanship, creativity and vision. If you want to improve than don't waist your time on bloody numbers. Once people get that they may have some chance of becoming a better photographer.

[manuel barrera houston,]

Ton that is correct but who determines that, one self? I am content with the progress I am making since I took up photography about 4 years ago, but we all come with a perception of what is good, so honest opinions are important at least I think so.

[joshroot]

Anonymous rating is in place because people could not act like adults.

Harassment, revenge ratings, and nasty email were all common when all

ratings were public. You personally may be able to take criticism well, but many,

otherwise normal, people have proven that they cannot. If they think

their image is better than it was rated, they react horribly.

 

If you do not wish to mess with ratings, you can submit your image for

"critique only"

[Norma Desmond]

Manuel-- HELPFUL honest opinions come in the form of critiques and comments, not numbers that act like a prize. The

Olympics is a competition. Photography is not. The ratings system trivializes photography. It is a way of appealing to

the masses but it does photography a disservice.

 

"But who determines that, one self?"

 

Ultimately, it will always be up to you, but if you're going to improve chances are you will have to learn as you go and

learning from others can be helpful. Generally speaking, if you pick people you think are your photographic equals or

better, watch them grow and develop, ask questions of them about their work and yours, listen to their advice sometimes

instead of assuming you are the consummate artist and only your voice matters (not suggesting you do that, but many

do), you'll be ahead of the game. If you read about photography, go to museums and galleries, get photo books, try

accomplishing the level of technique that some of the greats have, find photographers on PN better than you and ask

them what they think of your work and how you can improve it and really listen to their answers undefensively, you will

likely improve if you've got the least bit of an eye and talent.

 

Expecting stuff from the rating system or the leaders of the site is an exercise in futility. Their purpose is not your

improving as a photographer. It is pleasing as many members and advertisers as possible. PN is a business, not a

school, not a museum.

 

The ratings system is less like the Olympics than you think. At least in the Olympics, people are judged on talent. Here,

it is merely a popularity contest. I can point you to dozens of people who rate and/or comment on as many as 40 photos

a day. In return, they receive an average of 60 ratings on each photo they submit for critique, all with vapid comments

and mostly 6s and 7s. Clearly, the administration knows this goes on but does nothing about it, because they know it's

just a game and makes people feel good and makes people keep coming back to the site, which has to be part of their

goal. It's actually quite sick behavior and pathetic at that. Stay away from the ratings part of the site. It's got NOTHING

to do with photography.

[tonmestrom]

Manuel,

 

Fred said it all. there is really not much to add other than not solely to rely on PN or any other site for that. Fred implied as much. Find some really good photographers in your own circle who you can trust to give you feedback. In the end it's up to yourself, that's right but getting some good feedback can be very helpfull. Josh is right, there are those who can't handle constructive criticism. That's why there are so many mediocre and downright lousy photographers. Ratings are never gonna help you. Getting off on your ego maybe a nice feeling but it will only get you so far.

[manuel barrera houston,]

notice I mostly post for critque, I read the forums constantly, have well over a hundred books on photography, joined

a camera club associated with psa, member of psa and other photographic associations, view images in pbase,

jpgmag, betterphoto, shutterbug, great how to articles, but when I first came to this site, I thought it was something

else, the young man who started this was asking for an answer, and I have read many of the other forums that have

dealt with the issue, but just because this is the way it has been does not mean it has to be, I am nearly 60 years

old and still changing and learning and hope to be doing that till the day I die. what my english teacher would call a

run on sentence.

 

In short, maybe the persons who run photo.net could give us a short history as to what has been tried and failed.

Notice I did not write get rid of the anonymous ratings, i wrote limit the numbers, they do with the 7's to a degree. I

try very hard not to give high numbers to my friends and if i really wanted to help myself I would set up numerous

photonet accounts, I have enough email addresses to give myself 5 ratings.

[joshroot]

<i>"if i really wanted to help myself I would set up numerous photonet accounts, I have enough email addresses to give myself 5 ratings."</i>

<p>

And if you did that, you could be banned from the site. We have multiple ways of tracking down cheaters and frequently remove their accounts.

[manuel barrera houston,]

which proves my point you could limit the number of 3s one could give, banned as to posting, that would be no big deal, as to reading the forums, doubt it, from participating in the forums for sure, from rating for sure and of course you are assuming that the emails are from the same server.

 

a short history what has been tried other then not allowing anonymous ratings would be nice.

[joshroot]

There is more than enough information in the forum archives to fill a book about what has and hasn't been tried

with the ratings system. It is a topic that has been debated to death. Anyone who is interested can take the time

to search.

 

I've got a lot of other stuff I need to be working on.

[tonmestrom]

Manuel,

 

whatever they do it won't change the fact that a lot of people simply don't understand that a rating is only usefull to

get some exposure. Like Fred already said, it's not a competition but many want it to be. As flawed as the current

system is, limiting scores would render it even more useless. Limiting low scores would only serve to protect the

fragile ego's of many here.

 

"I am nearly 60 years old and still changing and learning" Isn't this a key sentence. Such an attitude is by far more

important than any rating you'll ever get, a lesson lost on most.

[tholte]

Manuel, I see that you are from Houston, Texas. If you really want the truth about your photos, go to FotoFest two years from now in Houston and pay to get some portfolio reviews. FotoFest is one of the largest gatherings of photographers and gallery owners in the world and takes place in Houston every two years. Placing any importance on ratings here on PN is pretty foolish and is not good for your mental health.