Anonymous and new members very low ratings right after posting.

[dimitaretch]

Hi Everyone,</BR>

Could you please help me understand why would the following photos get such low ratings - lots of 3s and 4s? I appreciate

your honest opinion!</BR>

</BR>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=7743385</BR>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings-breakdown?photo_id=7743400</BR>

http://www.photo.net/photo/7743422</BR>

http://www.photo.net/photo/7743416</BR>

</BR>

Thank you for your help!</BR>

Dimitare</BR>

[david_dorcich1]

Because the people that rated them didn't like them very much?

[dimitaretch]

Thank you for your informative answer! It will help me greatly to improve my photography skills!

[david_dorcich1]

What is the difference between a 4 and a 5?

 

You can ask for critiques only, and ignore the numerical ratings, since they are meaningless anyway.

[ronald_moravec1]

The photos are well executed, good composition, and technically very good, the content is not much more than average. My

opinion of course.

 

I would suggest you look at the winning photos for the week or month and look at the content and see why people like them.

 

It would be nice also if all the photos could be seen in one place sorted by high to low ratings.

 

When I used to rate photos, I always wrote a critique as that is what generated improvement. The art part rather than the

technical part is now what you need to work on and it is the harder half. I don`t think you have been misstreated as much as you

think.

[dimitaretch]

Hi David,<BR>

Your answer is a good base for a long "philosophical" discussion and I would prefer not to go into it as my initial question was related to these specific photos. Maybe I will do that for these images. <BR>Thank you for input!

[dimitaretch]

Hi Ronald,

 

Don't get me wrong. I understand that none of these images is a groundbreaking, but do you really thing this image deserves 3/3s - especially for aesthetics?

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7743422

 

Thank you comment! I will definitely check the top images in the architecture section.

[lex_jenkins]

Yes, Dimitare, a 3/3 rating would be appropriate for that photo. I might have rated it even lower, altho' you would not see ratings lower than a 3. It's a merely competent snapshot, one that any of tens of thousands of casual photographers might take.

 

If photo.net raters lowered their standards and gave higher ratings, some photographers would be happier, but they would not be receiving honest feedback. Excessively high ratings for merely competent photos do not motivate us to produce better work.

[Michael R Freeman]

>"... but do you really thing this image deserves 3/3s - especially for aesthetics?"

 

No offense intended, but do you really thing this image deserves 6/6s - especially for aesthetics? Some viewers may find the blurred fountain "water spout" dead center in the image very distracting.

 

Trying to "improve my photography skills" from random ratings is a pointless and futile exercise. Use the comments you get as a learning tool. Use the ratings you get as a measure of what a broad cross section of viewers thinks of your image. That is ALL they can really be useful for. And understand that some will think an image is below average while others may think the same image is excellent. BOTH viewpoints will have merit.

[dimitaretch]

Thank you all for your time!

 

I guess it is a point of view and I appreciate you honest feedbacks and all good pointers. The problem is that there are not that many comments just plain ratings.

 

I was pleasantly surprised by Ian Cox-Leigh who posted extremely robust and detailed analyze on all images from my original post (as comments)! There are just great!

 

Thank you one more time!

 

Regards,

Dimitare

[mikeoday]

Hi Dimitare

 

As I understand it, there are a number of different sources/reasons for lower ratings we receive:

1. honest personal opinions based on the viewer’s personal rating scheme

2. malicious or vindictive ratings in pay-back for poor ratings or comments

3. intentionally low ratings (either manually entered or from a ‘bot’) in attempt to distort the system to give greater visibility to their own images in the top-rated-photos gallery

 

I believe the administrators have made very good effort to curtail the actions of the last two. Indeed, if you watch the ratings on a particular image over time, you will likely see some of the ratings (low or high) removed by the administrators as being from suspect sources. So I believe these last two, whilst an annoyance, are not all that significant.

 

With regard the main source then…

 

I believe the issue for most of us is that of calibration. That is, for me, I take the view (quite likely wrong for all I know) that the average photographer on this site is a hobbyist of average skill. So if I were to grade photographers from: 1 (gradma, point-and-shoot camera, needs grandson to ‘download images’ (whatever that means), etc.) through to 10 (professional or ‘full-time’ hobbyist who regularly produces potentially competition winning images), then the average photographer for me is a 5 and is someone who likes to plan trips just to take photos (but can’t find the time to do so as often as they would like) and produces images that are, in the main, not too bad and occasionally good enough for friends to want a copy for their wall. So getting back to the point about calibration, a photo rated as ‘4’, by me, is one that I believe to be at the standard of an average photo produced by an average hobbyist – that is, an image that the average photographer themselves, would consider to be amongst their average photos. The implication from this is that a ‘bell’ curve with median at ‘4’ is clearly not appropriate from my perspective. That is, for me, if the site consists of average photographers producing average photos but only submitting their ‘above average’ images, then the median, as judged by average photographers, will be higher than ‘4’.

 

From reading the perfectly valid comments from others, it is obvious that they set a far higher standard and rate accordingly. All perfectly valid of course and very obvious and normal for them.

 

So as I see it, the main reason you and I and everyone else gets 3/3s and 6/6s for the same image is simply due to the personal rating system/calibration of each of us. So as long as we get enough ratings (something the administrators are actively trying to improve I understand) then the individual systems/calibrations will themselves average out and we will receive a ‘fair’ guide as to the relative merits of our images as determined by the average member.

 

To your example images then: using my personal system, I would say that, compared to the average photo produced by an average hobbyist, I would rate all of your images higher than 3 and at least one at 5.5. But then, this is just me and my system.

 

Keep up the good work and don’t pay too much attention to each rating. Just look at the mean.

 

All the best

Mike

[dimitaretch]

Thanks Mike!

 

I guess my “problem” is with the fact that there is no criticism attached to the bad ratings. I think that comments are

especially important and it should be mandatory for low ratings. Criticism is not that important with high ratings because the

photographer usually knows that he has got the shot right and what is good about it.

 

I agree with everything you said! It is all about “personal calibration system”! Mandatory comments attached to the low

ratings would allow the author to “assess” the level of the person that has rated the system and to get a general sense if

there is something really wrong with the image. For example, as a response to Ian’s exceptional critiques to the images, I

mentioned that even if I get 1/1 accompanied with such analyze, I would be more than happy because they can only

improve my photographer skills – next time I will consider these important points (I hope :)). This is part of the learning curve

that everyone goes trough.

 

IMO there is nothing wrong of taking a “bad” image. Nobody is perfect! The problem is if you don’t try to fix the issue next

time – if you take what you do seriously of course. And you can’t fix it if you don’t know what is wrong in a first place. This

is why I believe the critiques are very, very important with bad ratings and they should be made mandatory!

 

Finally, I really appreciate your great post and the time and efforts of all participants in this discussion. This what the

collaboration is all about and what attracted me to post my “masterpieces” :) online in the first place.

 

Best Regards,

Dimitare

[dimitaretch]

Michael, Lex , Ronald,

 

In regards with >"... but do you really thing this image deserves 3/3s - especially for aesthetics?" - I realized that it sounds little arrogant, but that was not my intention. It was just very spontaneous reply reflacting my frustration at the moment.

 

Regards,

Dimitare

[Michael R Freeman]

>"This is why I believe the critiques are very, very important with bad ratings and they should be made mandatory!"

<P>

That's not going to happen, so you might as well forget about that scenario, which has been discussed here ad nauseam (read <a href="http://www.photo.net/site-feedback-forum/00QKeF"><u>this post</u></a>), and dismissed by the current administration. Besides being impractical (how does a "this is bad" critique help anyone), too many here with egos bigger than their talent warrants demonstrate very juvenile behavior when their images are criticized. You may welcome criticism, but unfortunately everyone here does not behave like adults.

[dimitaretch]

Thank you Michael!

[lex_jenkins]

Dimitare, a rating of 3 is not necessarily a bad rating. It's precisely one notch below the average rating of 4 on a scale of 1-7. A rating of 1 or 2 could be interpreted as "bad". But photo.net protects members from ever seeing ratings lower than 3, so over time expectations have offset any gains from protecting photographers from seeing "bad" ratings. Since they never see a 1 or 2, they assume a 3 is bad. It's not. It's below average.

 

Because photo.net has high standards, a photograph that might be impressive to your friends and family might be little more than a snapshot to experienced photographers who have viewed many thousands of similar images. So an average rating of 4 seems appropriate for many photographs, no matter how much the photographer and his/her family and friends may treasure it as a keepsake or memento.

 

The specific photo I referenced is slightly below average - in my personal opinion, and I speak for no one else - because the water fountain is perfectly centered, out of focus and serves only as a distraction from an otherwise competent photo. It is not a "bad" photo. It's merely a bit below average.

 

There are other reasons why I might rate a photo 3. For example, I find it annoying when people post inappropriate photos in the Street Photography section for critiques. Many photos submitted there would be more appropriate for the Travel or other genres. If the photo is totally unrelated to the Street genre (again, my personal opinion and no one else's), I will assign a rating of 3 for originality. If the photo is exceptionally attractive I might give it a 4 or even 5 for aesthetics. But a photo of a statue, tourist trap or any location that is totally devoid of life and the human element, if only implied, doesn't belong in the Street genre. So, yes, I rate those lower because giving a high rating to an unsuitable photo does a disservice to other photographers who understand the genre and who deserve higher priority on the Top Rated Photos gallery within a given genre.

 

I have no idea whether others who view and rate photos apply similar criteria.

 

Other reasons for lower ratings via the anonymous queue include the fact that some images are badly distorted when shown on the anonymous queue. A recompression algorithm may produce grotesque aliasing and jaggies in diagonal lines and arcs, posterization of blue skies and red objects, oversharpening halos and other problems. I take the time to view the original version when there's any doubt. Some viewers on the anonymous queue may not do so.

 

Don't take the ratings too seriously. It has little or nothing to do with art criticism. It's a popularity contest, one which many, many photo.netters thoroughly enjoy. If you don't enjoy it, don't play the game. There are many wonderful places on photo.net to learn and develop your skills.

[mikeoday]

Sorry Dimitare for high jacking your thread a little, but …

 

It never occurred to me Lex that reviewers might give significant weight to the degree of correlation between the

subject of an image and the category in which it is submitted. Now, having read your post, I can see where you

are coming from and your approach is of course as valid as any other.

 

My problem though is that I have very little confidence in my ability to correctly categorise some images;

particularly at the margins. I simply try to do my best but sometimes though I find it almost impossible. For

example, consider the attached images that I’m about to add to my gallery and post for critique - I have no idea

where to put them!

 

To help me, do you know if the administrators have published a guide to help us identify the most appropriate

category?

 

Thanks

 

Mike<div></div>

[michaellinder]

I am pretty new to PN, and also rather unexperienced in digital photography. Historically, I can't say that I have had expert photographers - like many of you - review and critique my photographs.

 

My motive in signing up with PN was to improve my photographs. I do not sell them. I have never sold them, nor do I plan ever to do so. I simply want to bring my photographs up to a level at which I can feel like they may make a difference.

 

This is why I get crazy after requesting, demanding, begging for, and pleading for feedback when I post photographs to the forums and, for the most part, all I get is a rating (or sets of ratings). Numerical ratings without feedback are meaningless and useless. As an earlier post here indicated, they simply indicate whether someone liked or disliked a photograph. I DO NOT CARE whether anyone likes or dislikes any of my photographs. A rating of 7/7 without corresponding feedback is, to me, as devoid of meaning as a 1/1.

 

Please understand that I am not trying to antagonize anyone. I believe that my comments on photographs and portfolios have been within the bounds of propriety. However, time is precious to me, and if I have to play the role of a gadfly, so be it.

 

Thanks for reading this. Dimitare, I am grateful for your getting this ball rolling.

[kinell]

Michael: Simply submit photos for critique only.

 

Dimitare: As for the photo you picked out for Ronald, I would rate it 3/3 without hesitating. I really don't like

how the ugly, blurred fountain hides so much of the background. That being said, you have some nice other shots.

 

For the short time you've been here it seems like your portfolio has generated quite some interest. You have much

more comments and views of your portfolio than I have, and I've been around for more than a year! This, although

I consider my photos to be solid (of course :-)).

 

I guess that's something you could be happy about, and don't forget that more ratings automatically implies more

3/3's.

[twertman]

Ah, it feels so good to know I am not alone regarding the rating system. Others share my opinion. I am beginning

to understand that a perfectly executed, technically correct shot will not get more than a 3/3 unless "someone"

sees artistic value as well. Can anyone define art? Probably not but that is what we are up against when we open

our photos to the rating system in it's current configuration. I am going to try "critique only" for a period of

time and see what happens. Of course that also means I am going to spend more time writing critiques. I recently

learned that is the proper thing to do.

[dimitaretch]

Mike,

 

That is quite all right! You posted great question and I would like to see the reply as well as I have the same problem -

difficulty deciding the most appropriate category as very often they are not exclusive and sometimes the artist may use

them as a tool to emphasize certain aspects of the image.

 

 

 

Lex,

 

I understand that it is all about personal scale and it is all relative. I agree that “> It's precisely one notch below the average

rating of 4 on a scale of 1-7.” but it is also valid that it is precisely one notch above 2 which is not even visible. So ratings of

3 are the only indication of “bad” ratings and the fact that is close to 4 doesn’t make it better.

 

For example, another approach (instead of hiding 1 and 2) would be to introduce the numbers up to minus 10. Then 3 would

have been in even higher and not bad at all (just kidding :) of course).

 

As I mention in my previous posts, it was not the number that bothered me. Now I am ok, since I got so many feedbacks.

Next time I will probably just repost the photo for critiques-only instead of wasting everybody’s time and energy in the

forums for topics that have been discussed so many times.

 

Now, as for the category placement and its relation to the photo ratings, I think this is worthy of a separate discussion and it

greatly emphasizes your point (and Mike’s) of how broad people “calibrations” are.

 

And yes, I am all for high standards! This is the reason I become member of PN.

 

 

 

Thank you Michael Linder,

 

I should have checked the other posts before creating mine. The topic seems to be extensively discussed in this forum. It

just that my post was very impulsive.

In any case, this is a difficult and controversial topic since there are emotions involved. I would “predict” that at one point

the PN stakeholders and management will create a team of smart people to come with better solution as their costs in time

and resources (people on the moderation team) will only be increasing as the user base grows.

 

 

 

Andreas,

 

Thank you for your input! I think I got the point as there were so many detailed critiques on the image. Hey, I might be kind

of slow, but I am not that stupid! :) This my subjective opinion of course and I am sure some of my friends would gladly

argue on that one. :)))))

 

As for the activities, I finally gather of my “masterpieces” for the past 2 years and have been posting them very actively for

critiques/ratings since I became a member - usually 4 per day. Once most of them have been rated and critiqued, the

tempo will slow down as the photography is not my main occupation and I will not be able to dedicate the time I wish I

could.

 

I visited your portfolio and you have some good shots too. I especially liked “Free Ride”, “Waterbuck”, “Whiteface

Monkey”, “Hippos” and “Matterhorn” – nicely composed. I am sure anybody around would consider his her portfolio as

solid. :) And with the time portfolios tend to get better and better which is part of the learning process and professional

development. That said, I have mine is still very young and I am still contemplating what should go and what should stay. I

am hoping that the high standards of fellow photographers from PN will help me with this – thus the high posting rate. Your

current portfolio currently has 51 photos (mine about 130) and at the end of my selection I will be very happy if I end up

with similar number of worthy images as yours.

 

 

 

Tom,

 

I am with you on that one!

 

 

 

To all (and future) posters,

 

I always try to be respectful and follow-up with answers to people’s comments. At this point I believe, I got everything I was

looking for with my original post so I don’t plan future postings in this thread! If anyone would like to contact me, please

send me an email and I would do my best to reply in timely fashion.

I greatly appreciate all your time and efforts as they will be of great benefit to me in terms of further development of my

photography skills. I am sure next time I see a fountain, I will think twice of how prevent overwhelming and “ugly” look and

better fit into the overall composition. :)

 

And finally, after everything said and all shortcomings pointed out, I still like that photo – colors, exposition, symmetry,

tonality, etc.! :) And before you say it - I could be very, very annoying, I know. :) :)

 

One more time, THANKS to all involved in this discussion. That is what collaboration is all about!

 

All the best,

Dimitare

 

[morr]

Can anybody tell me what this rating means to me and how that I can learn from the rating results?

Also, the bug is obvious, it says 5 ratings but table gives 7.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7764052

 

Cheers

[lex_jenkins]

TseHwa Yang, I have replied to part of your question on the photo itself.

 

Regarding bugs in the ratings system, I don't see any discrepancies on the ratings you've received, other than that they are unusually and unrealistically high.

[morr]

Lux Jenkins, I did not come to complain I have received too many low ratings,

but to lead you to speak out how "unusal" and "unrealistic" the rating system is.

You sounded like a highway patrol officer but I am and was not the one speeding.

I did not come to compete but to learn as I believe photography is endless.

You are competing but blinded like you told me.

You can not tell me how colorful the world is if blinded.

According to your theory, I have beat you both on A and O by "score" the way you put it.

 

I regret you can not see the bugs I reported.

I think by keeping low profile one can tell the discrepancy between 6 and 8.

Further if you devide 39 by 8, it is not 4.83, nor 41 by 8 is 5.17.

 

I think it is perpendicular biased.