Just curious about the new limits for critiques

[tonmestrom]

Lex, I chose my words carefully. Photography isn't about competing or rather it shouldn't be. People want to make a competition out of it disregarding the fact that it's essentialy useless. They would e better advised to concentrate on the quality and concistency of their work.I know a lot of people want it and who am I to dispute that. If it makes them happy that works for me. The point is though that a lot of the people who start out could get a flawed impression of what photography is about. And it sure as hell isn't about competing. What about vision and creativity, not to mention passion. There will always be takers and a relatively few who really participate as it's intended. That's not to say nothing shouldn't be done about it but I don't think there is a definite solution. Especcialy not since I think you hit it on the nail in your last alinea.

 

Alexa, I'm not sure that that is what Josh has said or even implied. But suppose for a moment it would be than that would mean I wouldn't upload photo's anymore in the CF because I have no intention of rating again. Furthermore I think it would be diametrically opposed to what PN stands for because the emphasis would shift which would mean PN would become a rating site i.e. popularity contest. Critiqing and feedback would lessen even more.

[joshroot]

If any sort of "forced participation" is added, it will be for the area that you are trying to use. If you want to submit for ratings, you will have to rate X number of images for each image you wish to submit. You won't be required to do one thing when you are trying to get another.

[tonmestrom]

thought so

[bobatkins]

Josh wrote: "..If that is what you are saying, you are living in a dream world regarding PN membership. Sure, there

are good people here who take the time to give lots of useful feedback to other users. But they are dwarfed by the

number people who want to take as much and give as little as possible..." and he is entirely correct.

 

This is exactly the situation which has been written about numerous times in relation to the common use of a shared

resource. It's been studied in depth in numerous contexts, such as game theory (see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory) and the so called "tradegy of the commons" (see

http://www.greatchange.org/ov-hardin,tragedy_of_commons.html for example, or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons for another explanation).

 

You maximize your own benefit by maximizing your use of the common resouces and you "win the game" by getting

more than you give. Obviously not everybody is "playing the game", but it doesn't take many players to ruin the

resource for everyone else.

 

The "solution" to the "problem" is non-trivial and non-obvious. Forcing users to do certain things by limiting their

actions if they don't only changes the game parameters. It's doesn't define the outcome, it just changes the strategy

required for winning (maximizing benefits).

[tonmestrom]

Bob,

 

"Forcing users to do certain things by limiting their actions if they don't only changes the game parameters"

 

I think you're wrong because it's repressive by nature and will most likely prove to be counterproductive. While I think it was a wise move to limit the upload of non-paying members for the rest it would be better to use incentives rather than limits. Such policy goes a long way. Sure you'll have to accept that there are people who don't participate as you would like them to but that will always be the case. Besides, if you don't participate people will soon start ignoring you.

[kinell]

Bob: Thanks for bringing game theory up. That is in fact what I always have in mind when coming up with possible

solutions to the dilemma.

I assume members ("players") will always try to maximize their share. It is not trivial however, to define what

the share is nor how it is maximized. For example, I could imagine a shift from the game "who has the highest

photo ratings" to another game called "who is the best critic". The introduction of rater ratings would support

such a shift. By letting people play both games in the same field, so to speak.

 

Since the games are highly asymmetric, there might be nice synergies and we end up with a win-win situation.

 

IMO, rules for a community like this should be derived the following way:

 

-Determine what the goal of the community is (what is it we want to achieve?)

 

-Construct a game to support that goal which follows game theory principles (continuous, non-zero sum game, etc.)

 

-Implement the rules of that game

[joshroot]

I've often though about learning a little more about Game Theory so I could consider how it applies here. I should track down a good primer on the subject.

[lex_jenkins]

<i>"-Implement the rules of that game"</i><p>

 

That, unfortunately, is the tricky bit, Andreas. Between us all we have the motivation, the game plan and a reasonable set of common goals. However, I suspect that the limitation is the implementation. Photo.net's structure is a bit of a kludge and not easily modified to accommodate these game modifications.<p>

 

I have been wondering for several months whether beta testing an adjunct site specifically for this purpose is feasible. It could be built on a more readily modified platform. Unfortunately, I'm a concept guy and have no idea how to implement such a thing.<p>

 

In addition to the sources Bob referenced, it might also be worthwhile to peruse the Encyclopedia Dramatica, particularly the section on <i>lulz</i> to see what you're up against in trying to implement serious art criticism.

[kinell]

Josh: IMO definitely not a primer (rather heavy stuff), but worth if you're really into theory: "Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict" by Roger B. Myerson

 

Lex: beta-testing on a separate site sounds reasonable. Although I consider myself a concept guy too, I _do_ know how to implement such a thing (see http://www.netexception.ch) :-)

 

regarding lulz: I'm not really sure I got your message. In case that is what you mean: Yes, I am aware the whole system could backfire, but that's what moderators are for.

[GerrySiegel]

The science aspect made me recall a video I saw on traffic merging onto a freeway. You" win" if you can crowd out

at the last

minute those waiting in line to merge to freeway. You" lose" by getting in line. The overall traffic control

system flow ( a la the goal of the organization) wins if drivers followed a you go and then I go method. But then

everyone opts out of the game. Strange part is that sometimes the latter happens. Or they are the insurgents, and

say screw the rules of this game.

[bobatkins]

The trouble with game theory is that it's sufficiently complex that the math and logic to make it much use is beyond

most people (me included). Like quantum mechanics you can get the principles quite easily, but the calculations

quickly leave your brain feeling numb!

<p>

The current scheme would be impossible to analyze because there is no definition of what "winning" is and not

everyone has the same goal.

<p>

The trouble with fixing the current system is it's like tring to change the tire on a bus that's driving down the road at

60mph by leaning out of the window and trying to do it while the bus is in motion!

<p>

You could design a ratings scheme with the following constraints:<p>

<ul>

<li>Require a minimum of 24hrs between submissions

<li>Require you give at least 10 ratings for every image submitted

<li>Present all images as anonymous (no photographer attribution)

<li>Delay all submissions by a random amount of 1-6 hours before placing them in the "pool"

<li>Display image randomly from the "pool"

<li>Collect ratings for 7 days, then remove images from the pool, freeze the ratings and move the images to the

photographer's portfolio

</ul>

<p>

So everything here is randomized and anonymous, so at first sight you might think that there's no way to play the

game, but that's not really the case.

 

<p>

The problem is delayed gratification of course, something that wouldn't be too popular. It would also be true that if

you only rated the best images and gave them all low ratings, then your images would have a statistically better

chance of "beating" them, assuming that everyone else didn't use the same strategy. If a few people use your

scheme and the rest rate honestly (which is likely to be the case), then you win by "lowballing" the best images and

that's what game theory would probably suggest you do in order to improve your odds of wining.

[tonmestrom]

While I would normally be the last one to trample on ideas for improvement I have to be honest. I don't like the way this is going and I'm gonna tell you why

 

 

"The current scheme would be impossible to analyze because there is no definition of what "winning" is"

 

and a good thing too because there is absolutely nothing to win. There is a lot to be gained though but by reinforcing a competition element, whichever way it's setup, you're just gonna put even more emphasis on the rating side here. That's got nothing to do with photography.

 

 

 

"We started in 1993 and strive to be the best peer-to-peer educational system for people who wish to become better photographers"

 

Peer to peer review is something a lot of people want. Why not use your time and effort in improving that side of things. That has got everything to do with photography

 

 

"we have had a substantial increase in novices visiting the site to use it as a learning resource"

 

that to me doesn't seem to be consistent with a competition of sorts

 

 

If you really want the above why give so much attention to all those that get so hung up on ratings and keep complaining about it no matter what. Photography isn't a game and the sooner people will get that in their skull the faster this site will improve.

 

 

 

 

.

[bobatkins]

""The current scheme would be impossible to analyze because there is no definition of what "winning" is" -- and a good thing too because there is absolutely nothing to win"

 

Of course there is. A spot in the "top rated images" and a stroke for the photographer's ego. There are numbers. The numbers are sorted in order. The images with the highest numbers are shown. Obviously there is a game here. If you don't see that then you are missing the whole point.

 

Should it be that way? Of course not. Photography isn't a sport, but then neither is loosing weight or designing clothes, and both of those are themes of popular TV reality GAME shows. Everything is a contest today and if you award a score, you have a game. Even if you don't award a score, if you treat some images differently then others, you automatically have a contest and provide an incentive for "gaming" the system.

 

"Photography isn't a game and the sooner people will get that in their skull the faster this site will improve" - and that's where you're wrong (and right) Photography is a game, and cameras and lenses are the weapons. To win the game you need the best weapons. Haven't you been reading the forums?

 

In the words of WOPR (and in another nod to game theory?). "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

[mg]

Josh wrote: "If any sort of "forced participation" is added, it will be for the area that you are trying to use. If you want to submit for ratings, you will have to rate X number of images for each image you wish to submit. You won't be required to do one thing when you are trying to get another."

 

It all sounds very reasonable to me, so far. This, and the rest.

 

I'm not a paying member, but it seems reasonable to me that paying members get the right to post more images and to request more critiques. OF COURSE it is reasonable.

 

And now if we are talking - as it seems here - about "forcing" people into critiquing more to get more critiques - or rating more to get more ratings -, that seems perfectly reasonable as well. Those who feel they would then be "forced" to do something, and who dislike that, are imo misunderstanding something. They are mostly misunderstanding that many people - include me in that bunch - have been critiquing a lot in the past, but were later discourage from spending time on the site sharing knowledge with others. What has discouraged me ? Here you go:

 

1) Too many retaliations games and too many people who actually want only praise about their little masterpieces.

2) Too much time and effort trying to write real constructive critiques and getting nothing but 7s or empty one-liners as a "reward". I don't care for "Great shot 7/7" comments: they mean nothing. Gerry S. (who posted above in this thread) has on number of occasions given me meaningful critiques. So did Michael Chang, Carl Root, Doug Burgess, Bob Hixon, and a few orthers. But nowadays, people like them are rare over here. So why post pictures,why invest time here if I hardly get anything out of posting pictures or comments ?

 

By "forcing" people to give so they can get, you will in fact remind those who should not have forgotten about it, that this is a "give-and-take" site. I'm all for it.

 

Then perhaps constructive critics who used to be more active will have a real motivation to return to the site, and this place could become a place to discuss matters toroughly again, as it used to be -, instead of remaining the empty shell it's been for years.

 

It's nice to see the management heading the right direction after years of nonsense. Imo, PNet must STAND FOR SOMETHING. In terms of critiques, it would be nice if the site could stand more and more for active critiquing and constructive criticism. If anything can be done to somehow revive the spirit of the old "critique circles", I think you'll be surprised how many good ghosts from the past will be walking back here. Just 20 or 50 real critics walking back and spending time here again, together with the appropriate management moves to stimulate discussions on the site, and photo.net could be in no time what it used to be before the turn of the millenium - or even better.

 

As a side-note, the newsletter was a good idea, the discussions on specific genres as well, all this is going the right way. Forcing people to write comments so they get comments is a great idea too. At least I'd know I'd be writing for interesting discussions next time ! Not sure how many people do that, but I always use the "follow-up on my previous comments" feature, in order to engage in interesting discussions each time I can.

 

Another interesting step would be for the management to make the "critiques-only" gallery more user-friendly - a thumbnailed gallery, please -, and to ensure that people would actually get real critiques in there !

 

I know that the management "can't please everybody all the time", but please note that management doesn't have to do so either ! :-) Just go ahead with these measures, and the site will be alive again in no time, and those doing the rat race will still have it, but those looking for torough discussions may finally get what they came for as well, and very few would still complain 2 months down the road.

 

Photo.net should imo stand for the belief that this community is meant to SHARE KNOWLEDGE, and should do exactly what it takes to make that happen - and nothing else. (Of course, I'm only saying here what I personally believe, but at least, I've made it very clear, haven't I...? :-)

[tonmestrom]

"Obviously there is a game here. If you don't see that then you are missing the whole point"

 

you should really read my posts again. For me there is a big difference between winning and gaining and if you don't see that you should rewrite your "mission statement" I'm not naive, give me some credit I'm well aware that people are competitive and for that you have a system in place. However you design it it will always be flawed for a lot of people. On occasion you've written about the need to get rid of the 1's and 2's and the reasons for that. What you've done in fact is give in to some immature nitwits. If you're now gonna redesign the rating system it's a waste of effort because nothing really changes.

 

"Photography is a game, and cameras and lenses are the weapons. To win the game you need the best weapons"

Either you're hoping I'll bite or you actually haven't got a clue. Whatever it is, I get the distinct feeling I'm wasting my time here.

[gordonjb]

" Whatever it is, I get the distinct feeling I'm wasting my time here. "

 

That depends on your goals. If you are trying to provide fodder for the decade long, Josh, Bob and Lex show, you're doing a fine job. If you think anyone who matters is taking you seriously then yes you are wasting your time.

 

Go take some of those great street shots you do and save your energy for something that actually matters.

 

Regards. Gord

[bobatkins]

I'd really like to see what the result would be if some of the armchair website designers actually had to to design and

build a website for image critique. At the very least it would be instructive, and at best it would be quite entertaining.

 

If it's all so obvious what should be done, someone is missing out on a golden opportunity to start a website that will

blow all the other critique websites into the weeds and make the designer a million dollars (and I'm not joking about

that figure). I just can't figure out why someone hasn't done it yet.

[lex_jenkins]

It's not my show, Gordon. I didn't participate in ratings or critiques for many years, and only started again earlier this year to try to gain an understanding of what the complaints were about.

 

For the record, at the time when I began rating and critiquing photos again this year I had been an inactive moderator for more than a year. Now that I'm actively moderating the b&w forums again I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to continue rating and critiquing photos, since there exists an incorrect presumption that I have some influence in how things are done. I don't.

 

My participation is exactly the same as - I hope - everyone else's is: to help set a high standard for photographic criticism.

 

What I've discovered is that while the system itself is imperfect, it is the use and misuse of the system by the general membership that is at fault. An extraordinary amount of effort and negative energy is expended by a relative handful of people who are contributing little more than ill-will by attempting to create a false illusion that the system is broken, that there is some vast conspiracy to low-rate some photos and elevate others, that this is done with the approval and even collusion of photo.net administration and, most ridiculous of all, that *everyone* feels this way.

 

Sorry to disappoint those of you who are (to quote the one memorable thing Spiro Agnew ever said), "nattering nabobs of negativity," but the system actually works remarkably well. I've submitted my own photos for critiques and anonymous ratings and in every case the feedback was perfectly appropriate, including the ratings of 3 I received.

 

My advice:

 

1. Take better pictures.

 

2. Stop whining.

[kinell]

> "I'd really like to see what the result would be if some of the armchair website designers actually had to to design and build a website for image critique"

 

Bob: I think I could very well design and build a rating website that would blow most others away. That being said, we are not a bunch of website designers, but a team of highly qualified software architects and engineers.

 

The problem is your second statement:

 

> "If it's all so obvious what should be done, someone is missing out on a golden opportunity"

 

In fact, highly skilled software engineers are most of the time not missing out on a golden opportunity, but working on another golden opportunity. If the expected revenue justified dropping another project, I would be very interested in collaborating on a prototype as Lex mentioned. This however, would be a matter to be discussed in a more exclusive circle. You have my email...

[gordonjb]

Lex;

 

I agree with the better part of your above comment. However the thread was start to discuss critique, most of the

other contributions relate to critique and you are going on about ratings again. Your comments on rating seem on

the mark but the fact that you have including the word critique in this statement " I've submitted my own photos

for critiques and anonymous ratings and in every case the feedback was perfectly appropriate " leads me to

disagree. It would appear, from my limited vantage point, that some members would not agree that posting an image

for critique in a critique forum, on what is supposed to be an educational website and receiving one or two, or

no critiques on a regular basis is " perfectly appropriate ". You regularly tell us that rating and critique are

" distinct" which I agree with, yet every time the subject of critique is raised you jump in to tell us that the

rating system works perfectly. By your own definition, the health of the rating system is a separate issue from

improving the critique function of the site.

 

I only have $25 invested in this system. If the critique function of this site improved that would be nice, if

it remains the same or backslides, as the ranks swell, that's fine with me as well.

 

I could see Ton banging his head against a wall, making suggestions about improving critique. He suggested his

contribution may be pointless, I agreed.

 

Hopefully I have not strayed too far into contravening Advice # 2 territory :-)

[bobatkins]

Andreas - my comments presupposed that I agree that a better system could be built and that it would attract users.

I'm not so sure that's true.

 

The vast majority of "photographers" are perfectly happy with Flickr. As H.L.Mencken once said "Nobody ever went

broke underestimating the taste of the American public". You design a site based on the lowest common

denominator (just look at MySpace). If that means a site where you post your pictures and everybodu loves them,

then that's what will make the money.

 

I don't think an honest critique site would please many people and I doubt that more than 5% of the audience would

be able to give a coherent and useful commentary on images presented. Most people want to be told what to do to

make their images better. That's not really the purpose of a commentary or critique.

 

Building a site is really fairly trivial. I wrote a user contributed gallery application using MySQL and PHP in a couple of days, including

image uploading and resizing functions. You can see it here - http://www.bobatkins.com/gallery3/index.php. I did it mostly for fun. It

doesn't allow ratings or critiques, though that would only take a day to add if I wanted to (but I don't).

 

On Gordon's point that not receiving any critiques is not appropriate for an educational website, well, what do you

expect? There will always be more people wanting to take than willing (and able) to give, so how can that be anything

different? You can't make people give an intelligent and useful critique if they don't want to or are unable to. If you

make then give a critique before getting one, you'll get a bunch of superficial critiques given only for the purpose of

being allowed to request a critique - and that critique will probably come from someone equally uninterested in giving

one, but who in turn wants one themself.

 

It's like a college course where the students are supposed to teach each other and grade each other's papers. How

well do you think that would work out?

 

There are a couple of sites which promise a 300 word "professional" critique of images - but it costs you $5-$10 each

time. I don't think they do a lot of business. I don't know how good or useful the critiques are, but I assume they

must be somewhat better than "Wow, I love it". If you only get a few useful critiques on your images over a whole

year, you're ahead of the game with photo.net's $25 subscription fee.

[lex_jenkins]

<i>"...most of the other contributions relate to critique and you are going on about ratings again..."</i><p>

 

Nope. Read the thread again more carefully from the top down. I am *responding* to other people who dragged the ratings issue into this otherwise focused discussion, which was totally inappropriate.<p>

 

What I'm seeing is the misuse of the feedbag forum by some people to sully every attempt at a rational discussion of the critique system by repeatedly dragging the ratings system into the mix.<p>

 

<i>New Member: "Hi, I'm having trouble understanding how to submit my photos for critiques."<p>

 

Cynic #1: "Don't play the game. The ratings system sucks. It's rigged by mate-raters."<p>

 

New Member: "Umm... I only asked how to submit a photo for critiques and comments. I'm trying to learn. I don't care about the ratings..."<p>

 

Cynic #2: "Yeh, the ratings suck. It's just cowards lurking behind anonymity to low-rate photos!"<p>

 

New Member: "Ohh-kay, then, I'm just gonna mosey on over to Flickr now..."<p>

 

<b>...eight weeks later...</b><p>

 

Cynic #693: "I haven't participated constructively on photo.net in years but couldn't resist the urge to jump in and say something nasty about the administrators and moderators..."<p>

 

Cynic #27: "You know, it's really rude how that New Member asked a question and never had the courtesy to reply or thank us for bashing the ratings system. That really chaps my buns."</i><p>

 

Etc., etc.

[gordonjb]

Given my poor reading and comprehension abilities, I should probably stick to photography and leave this forum to

those with more careful reading skills. Read the entire thread from the beginning!

Was I supposed to read the whole thread from all the way back at the beginning ? Geez no wonder I don't know

what I'm saying.

[lex_jenkins]

Now you know one of the secrets to being a moderator: the ability to discern the micro-zeitgeist of lengthy, tedious threads.

 

Well, that and the chain mail pantyhose of virtue.

[acarodp]

Some time ago, I stopped rating, because I noticed that finding two satisfactory numbers was more difficult to me

than saying the thing in plain words in a comment. I did it a brief try again some weeks ago, and found that my

feeling were unchanged. <p> Since then, I try to keep my count of critiques given above the one of the requested,

and this was no difficult at all. I still do not submit my photos for critique only, because I'm actually curious

about the rating outcome. But curious is all. What I would like to have are comments. And as anybody knows you

get few. The last two images I posted in the C.F. were explicitly requesting opinions (e.g. on the chosen

post-production) and did not get any. On the other hand, one got a few (good) ratings, which is fairly amusing if

you want. <p>

Myself, I have issues understanding the feeling of Bob about the ratig vs. critique business... it seems to me

that you claim in this thread that people searching to "win" the top rated photo race are essentially wrong, that

it should not be that way. If I get this right, if this is what you think, how does it come that right there in

the home page there are top rated photos / top photographers and "daily samples" which are (correct me if I'm

wrong) all essentially rating based? If you believe that the site should not be a popularity contest, why are the

those who see it this way instead rewarded in the same home page, why is the popularity contest so prominently

displayed? <p>

Although I try not to be in that game (the temptation is there, mind you) I have the strong impression that a the

majority (or at least a strong minority) of members are in. So I might guess that you just do not want to make

the majority of members unhappy by taking away their toy, since a lot of subscriptions are likely paid also (if

not solely) to have that toy available. This is fair, and I might just not care, provided what I search for is

also provided... <p> L.<p> P.S. And my recipe then is? I don't really have one. Some of the methods suggested

here (e.g. link number of critiques requested to given) are used, as you surely know, by photosig, and some

members there I know swear they work. I don't have time to give any meaningful time to TWO web sites, so I did

not try myself...