Call me paranoid...

[chrisspracklen]

... if you like, but I am still 100% convinced that there are one or two rogue raters out there who deliberately (and anonymously) rate

virtually every image I upload with a 3/3 or 4/4.

 

My question is, if that is the case, why should such people be allowed to continue to hide behind a cloak of anonymity? All I'm asking is

that either all rating should be done on a named basis ~ i.e. no anonymity ~ after all, why would anyone want to rate anonymously unless

they are rating maliciously?

 

Or that, alternatively, within the system whereby random recent uploads are fed for rating, the photographer's name is omitted so that

anyone who may have some kind of grudge against a particular photographer will not know which images are his or hers.

 

Thanks for your consideration.

 

Kind regards,

 

Chris Spracklen

[pmj]

I think it would be best to have a system that encourages as many ratings as possible. That way, one or two "odd" ratings

won't matter so much.

 

The reasons for having an anonymous system have been discussed thouroughly -- please search the archives.

 

Not displaying the photographer's name is something many people will object to. It is their work that would be displayed

uncredited, and they might circumvent this by adding their name to the image file itself.

[Matt Laur]

<i>why would anyone want to rate anonymously unless they are rating maliciously?</i>

<br><Br>

Because with some people, when you DO rate them honestly, become enraged, and make it their purpose in life to

do exactly what you think is happening to you. Everyone who uses the Sharing -> Rate Photos system is rating

anonymously. If you look at the details of your ratings, you can see which ratings came in that way, vs. which ones

are from people who deliberately visited one of your images and rated it (which publicly associates their name with

the rating they left).

<br><br>

Josh has pointed out many times how revenge rating gets out of control when people leave well-deserved,

identifiable "average" or "below average" numbers on an image that they think is... average, or below average. It's a

shame that some people can't handle it (a frank recognition of averageness), but it's clear that many can't. As for

omitting the photographer's name when the work is seen in the anonymous ratings queue... I think that's been

discussed, and I don't recall what the administrative disposition is on that front. I can think of pros and cons on that

one.

<br><br>

Looking at your recent critique requests... the most recent ("Mysty Sunset" - a fine piece of work) got nothing less

than a 5! From a guy that racks up lots of 3's, I can tell you not to worry about being above average in your received

ratings. In fact, glancing at your five most recent submissions, I don't see a single below-average anonymous rating.

Of the five shots, I'd consider them all nicely above average, except for the Thun shot, which has its post-processing

underwear showing just a little too much for my taste (and I should know, because mine is always hanging out!).

<br><br>

The point is, I'm not actually seeing anything malicious. I'd also not sweat 4/4 ratings, ever. You've got thousands of

people glancing at images in the anonymous queue. They all have different sensibilities or a different amount of time

they're willing to let their eyes linger on an image. I'm never bothered by average ratings, and certainly wouldn't be

bothered by the typically higher-than-average ratings that you seem to accumulate. Just sayin'!

[chrisspracklen]

Many thanks, Matt. I really appreciate your comments. I guess I just get a little touchy at times and when my last

upload got a very favourable comment followed by a 3/3 anonymous rating I just snapped.

 

The fact is, I've deleted pretty much every image that received a 3/3 rating. Somewhat extreme, I know, (indeed, some

would use other words, like 'petty' and 'immature'), but I find such ratings frankly discouraging and, to a large extent,

unnecessary. I guess the answer is for my to bypass the ratings process entirely and just opt for critiques.

 

Thanks again for your kind and considered response.

 

Best regards,

 

Chris

[mike dixon]

<i>I find such ratings frankly discouraging and, to a large extent, unnecessary.</i><P>

Do you feel the same about the hundreds of 3s, 2s, and 1s that you've given to others (about 9% of your total)?

[richterjw]

paranoid

[chrisspracklen]

Mmmm, thanks, Jeremy. Really helpful.

[blue-olympus]

Hi Chris,

I wouldn't let it worry you, it's not important at all. Whatever people rate your photography at, is total irrelevant. It seems to me that they are stopping you displaying your shots on Photonet. For the life of me, I cannot understand "why". Your a talented photographer, your work is very skilfully shot and manipulated. Why let a handful of people, who in all reality are at total liberty to rate your shots between 3-7 if they want to, whether they rate through artistic content or just being damn stupid, deprive you of displaying to me and a great deal of your friends, your work. At the end of the day Chris, it's only a photograph, don't take it to heart Mate. If your ratings go up or down, what difference does it really make, your a great guy a good photographer and above all a Man of God! Take care..Kind Regards!

[lex_jenkins]

Chris, Jeremy is just funnin' ya. Many of us have done many a battle through these ratings war threads. You either develop a thick hide and good sense of humor or the whole thing becomes a drudge.

 

I've written at tedious length about my perspective on the anonymous ratings issue, which is entirely unofficial and subjective. I'm not speaking as a moderator or in any way a representative of photo.net. I'm just another guy. Dig through the archives if you don't mind your eyeballs bleeding and brain glazing over from my evangelical rhetoric.

 

Here's the deal: All ratings of 3/3 or higher are good. The more ratings you get, the better your shot at a spot on the ever-changing TRP. Seriously. You don't need all good ratings. But you do need lots of 'em.

 

I've submitted my own photos for anonymous ratings and you wouldn't believe the mediocre pix of mine that made the TRP. A few generous folks would give 'em ratings of 5 or higher, but it was the anonymous 3's and 4's that added just enough total ratings to kick 'em into the TRP.

 

The low ratings only negatively impact those photographers who routinely get 6's and 7's. It can marginally influence whether their photos are displayed on page 1 of the TRP or "buried" a page or two back.

 

For the rest of us, the anonymous ratings mean one thing: Someone actually viewed your photo. That's all. Consider the number to be the equivalent to "Hey, I saw your photo! Have three Skittles!" or "Hey, I saw your photo! Have seven Reese's Pieces!"

 

Great, I'm glad they saw my photos. I don't like Skittles and would rather have one beer than seven Reese's Pieces.

 

Relax, Chris, enjoy the process, don't let the silly stuff suck all the enthusiasm out of your passion.

[sprouty]

<I>"...my last upload got a very favourable comment followed by a 3/3 anonymous rating I just snapped."</I>

<P>

Really, a 3/3 caused you to snap? It's not at all conceivable that someone simply didn't like your image?

<P>

I don't rate but if I did we might be at odds on this one...

<P>

http://www.photo.net/photo/1738071

[richterjw]

Chris, I was flipping through your portfolio. You have good work. Don't take me personally. Just responding to your title. Stay unwound and enjoy the site. JR

[Lacerda]

Hello Chris!

 

Maybe you will call me paranoid too, but for me the real problem of rating questions, isn’t the 3/3 and 4/4 but the 7/7s. :-)

 

When you look at the top photos you will see a lot of pictures that is far not the best of all,"INCLUDING MINE", I have rated a couple of pictures and I have seen a lot of real wonderful images that never comes on the top photos, and the reasons you know.

If the photographer don’t want to play the game that is on table, their pictures will never be on the top photos page and I think that it isn’t a problem to them too, because they know the game and their own skills and quality, for me the real problem of that is for the site, having images on top that do not deserve to be there and seeing better ones in wrong places, but to correct it is really a hard task, almost impossible with this democratic system rating, that was the utopia of Marx, Trotsky, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin etc,

I do have a real solution, we will offer to photo.net a payment of 1.000 dollars a year and they will contract good photographers to rate our pictures, what do you think.? I don’t like my own solution, do you? I have looked at your portfolio, and I saw a lot of wonderful pictures most of them are very good, and I think that you know that too. I have also tried to find a 3/3 and I haven’t found it. The anonymous rating for me is the only that is still working, were we can give a "true" rate without get back the revenge. I don’t feel that I am behind a cloak when I am rating anonymously, it is just part of the system, and I am sure that there are important reasons, otherwise the site would not make it so. About your suggestion to omit the name of the photographer isn’t a good idea, it may become even worse than it is, we will see the name written on the picture only of the group that are already on the top, do you get the point? Once again the real problem isn’t the 3/3s, I will try to explain why I think so. IF I give you 3/3 with the quality that you have you will never accept as true, you will think that the person that gave the 3/3 know nothing about photography, all right? but if you give me 7/7 maybe I will think that is true and I am a wonderful photographer. That is the real problem. :-( ,

 

(sorry for my bad English)

[chrisspracklen]

To all those generous people that took a bit of time to reply to my little rant…

 

A huge 'THANK YOU'!

 

You've helped me gain a new perspective on this ratings thing and I appreciate all your input and wisdom very much.

 

Best regards, Chris

[mark_chartrand]

I really would not worry about a photo rating that you receive. They serve no purpose because they do not tell you anything.

It is like saying your picture is pretty, dumb, gay, stupid, wonderful.......totally meaningless. They only meaningful response

is a critique as long as explanations are included. It is too dark. Great response!, as long as....if it were lighter it would cause this

effect....etc.was included ....because is a key word in a person's comments about your work.

 

As far as I can tell most people want a pat on the back, not to learn to be better photographers. I would really like to see two

galleries. One gallery for those who want to learn and really hear what others think and why. This would allow the

photographer to improve. A second gallery for most where they can have nothing but praise. It is the middle school philosphy

where you must make the student feel good about themselves no matter how they perform....again, totally meaningless. You

should only feel good about yourself if you tried your best and accept and seek information that will help you improve. Ultimately, perfect is

"good enough". Perfect is different for each person.

 

If you want a true - meaningful and honest - critique, you could always contact me and see if I have the time and I feel that

you what to learn and benefit from well meaning criticism. I do have limited time. I usually help those who shoot portraits, but

on occasion, I will look at other images. As my good book says, "God helps those who help others." ---- or something like that.

[Lacerda]

Hello Mark Chartrand!

 

I would like to say something about your comment on this question, with all respect that we deserve from each

other, but I do have a problem that a carry with me for a long time, I can’t shut up my mouth when I see and hear

or read things, I have paid high price for that and I am still unable to control myself, maybe you have seen

others with the same problem, do you?

 

Friend I have seen other question that you have posted here a couple o days ago, about this difficult topic that

is rating and comments, and there we can see that you have taught photography for the last 30 YEARS, long time

isn’t? I can remember that I have had a look at your initial page to get some information about you, because a

member with such knowledge is always welcome and can be helpful for me and for many, and that was your profile:

 

You have started here on : September 08, 2008 ,you had 4 photos on your portfolio, you had made 14 Comments on

Gallery Photos and 6 comments on portfolios … now a couple of days later is this.

 

28, September 2008: forum posting 6, comments on Gallery Photos 14, comments on Portfolios 6, I can’t see the

anonymous rating it not appears on the page but I presume that is none. 0.

And you call yourself as helper that learned it from you book where is written something like this "God helps

those who help others." And I believe in that too,

 

But to make a explanation of this scenario, and try to understand what is going on, I came to this panoramic

view::: it looks like a doctor that is on the battle field in the middle of a big war seeing people injured and

dying, and this doctor helped only 6 old man, 14 children, none soldiers and still being proud to call aloud I

AM A DOCTOR.

I also want to see two galleries one for the photographers and one for the professors.

 

Forgive me with you can, that is only based on your own profile and comments. All the best, my friend.

[eddie m.]

Quote: Patrick Hudepohl:"I think it would be best to have a system that encourages as many ratings as possible. That way, one or two "odd" ratings won't matter so much. "

================

 

I think the admin knows very well who's behind that wall named "anonymous", and as a matter of fact I found already couple profiles (I'm sure there are more such profiles, but I didn't have time to waste looking for... how should I call them?) with no pictures, but they rated thousands of pictures with 3's and 4's. It seems to me that the admin has fun seeing us mad because of those rates. Yes, I know you'll say "you rated with 3's too". Yes, I did. But if I did so, those picture were for sure under that "3" rating, maybe they didn't deserve not even "1", but you don't have 0...

And as a response to Chris Spracklen, be happy, you're not the only one who gets 3's and 4's, and you may complain as much as you want, nobody will do nothing. And even if they will turn off that anonymous thing, what you gonna do? Will you look for revenge? No, I don't think so. First of all, I'm sure they're phony profiles, and you'll never know the real user. It might be the next picture that you gonna rate with 7/7!

Ignore them. Or invite them to rate your pics as much as possible! Don't worry, they don't read the critique request's message...

[joshroot]

<i>"It seems to me that the admin has fun seeing us mad because of those rates."</i>

<p>

Yeah, I love having angry people send me email full of insults because they cannot understand why their cat photo got a low rating. Really brightens my day.

<p>Your statement is ludicrous and shows a high degree of ignorance about the ratings system and the work that the site does to remove bogus ratings and duplicate accounts.

[anov]

You said "...after all, why would anyone want to rate anonymously unless they are rating maliciously?"

 

This is too funny.

 

Whenever you go to Galllery>Rate Photos, YOU become anonymous rater to others. Sometimes it's

easier to assume malicious intent, rather than to accept that some people just don't like your picture.

[mark_chartrand]

Hello Joao Pereira de Lacerda Filho,

 

It was very nice to hear from you and to read your insightful comments on my comments about Chris Spracklen's

comments. Boy, thats a lot of comments. Of course, that goes without saying -- as it should have. As always, I agree with

you 100%. Helping photographers who need help and wish help is very much like the good doctor on the battlefield. We must

have a system of priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors. Kind of sounds like we should sacrifice the few

for the many doesn't it. Not to worry. We aren't politicians so we won't get elected or make any money off of it. That system

in photography is usually called critique, comment, help, education, etc., but to go along with your analogy, let's call it triage.

Perhaps this is what it should be called because the photographic dying and those beyond our help are those who do not

seek to improve themselves. Maybe photography should be for the living and not for those who do not want to advance their

knowledge. Stagnation does not lend itself well to improving oneself.

 

I have not seen your work, but I will rate your photographs all 7/7s. That way you, like many others whose photographs I

have seen and other people have rated, will have a good inner feeling. Also, neither of us will have to waste our time by

thinking nor improving. We must make sure everyone has a good self-image. Not only is it a good idea to help others feel

good, but I've heard of a learned man (or woman) who once said, "God helps them who helps themselves." Of course, that

person may have misspoken. Many of His/Her words and meanings have been twisted for self-aggrandizement.

 

And yes, 30 years of teaching is a long time. Some say with age comes wisdom. Look at Bush! With age you are closer to

the realization that death approaches and perhaps it allows you to speak and accept truth without worry.

 

As my poor dead mama often said, "Death is right around the corner, but so is the A & P." My mama was a little strange.

 

Mark

[Lacerda]

Hello Mark.

I would like to thank you for your feedback, for rating my all my pictures with 7/7s without seeing it :-(

and for call me BOY I have forgot when was the last time that I heard someone calling so, it really brought me

back to the old good days, thank you for this.

 

Friend I meant no wrong when I made the statement about your 30 years as lecturer, It was my intention to make a

compliment.

 

Once again forgive me and enjoy the Community.

[sprouty]

Joao,

The term "boy", as used above, is intended as an interjection (such as "Wow!"). I'm sure no offense was intended.

[laurent-paul]

Ecclesiastes 1:2

[davidmccracken]

We are submitting our photos for critique. Critiques should be mandatory if you wish to rate. If there are those that want to submit for rating only, let them do so.

[naturegirl99]

"Do you feel the same about the hundreds of 3s, 2s, and 1s that you've given to others (about 9% of your total)?"

 

Amen to that, Mike Dixon. Funny that no one bothered to offer an opinion on your response! Why can't people take what they give out with such apparent ease?

 

Yes, there are malicious raters out there. It's a fact. We all have to deal with it. This topic has been done to death, and each time you think it's really, finally OVER....it's brought back to life again....resurrected...

 

Hey, maybe the malicious raters are really zombies.

[lex_jenkins]

David, not everyone submits their photos for critiques. Believe it or not, many photo.netters actually enjoy the

ratings game. And that's what it is: gaming. It's competitive and as with many competitions, scoring can be

baffling. But history proves that many folks really enjoy the gaming aspect of the TRP. Critiques are only

incidental to this, from their POV.

 

Folks who view and rate via the "anonymous" queue are serving a legitimate purpose. They are filling that

specific need. There's nothing inherently malicious about the game. It's just highly competitive. But, yes, as

with anything gamey, sometimes it stinks a bit. And it's a bit chewy. And has fur around the edges.

 

Critiques are for folks who prefer Tai chi. Ratings are for the cage match ultimate fighting crowd.

 

Nancy, sometimes I wonder whether the malicious complaints about malicious raters are the uber-zombies. Either

way, both groups must have eaten my brains. The more of these threads I read, the dumber I get.