Photo Rating

[kalayl]

I have developed a severe dislike for the quantitative photo rating

system. I have seen too many examples in the last few weeks of

photos (including mine) that were rated as just numbers, with a

complete disregard for what the terms "Aesthetic" and "Originality"

actually mean.

 

I would suggest scrapping the numeric rating system and

strengthening the website's navigation in order to build on the

comment/critique approach. deviantart.com has a fantastically

enjoyable system that I find works very well, based on member

comments and a simple "love, like, dislike, no comment" system.

 

For those photographers trying to get started out there (including

myself), a few words of artistic and constructive praise/critique

would be far more valuable than a antiquated school-based grading

system based on logic and reasoning. Photography is, after all, an

art and as such is intended to stir our emotions.

 

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the relevant parties on

an otherwise satisfying website and a great place to become part of

the online photographic community. I shall hopefully be displaying

my work for some time to come.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sven Poppelmann

[mottershead]

Steve, I am thinking of instituting a scheme similar to the one you describe. People would be able to rate a photo: Good, Very Good, or Excellent. If the rater doesn't think the photo is at least Good, he simply doesn't rate it. Kind of a "If you can't say anything good, don't say anything" rating system. Of course, people would still be able to write about features of the photograph that they don't like in a comment. In a system like this, the number of ratings would be as important as the average rating level, since every rating would be positive to some degree.

 

In addition, we are thinking of letting people nominate photos for Photo of the Week, giving them some number of nominations per day. A Photo of the Week nomination would essentially be treated as a rating one level above "Excellent" when filtering photos by rating.

 

We are also thinking of letting people have a gallery of, for example, 20 "Favorites" on photo.net. A "Favorite" would be treated as one level above "POW Nomination". Any member would be able to visit another members gallery of "Favorites" and recent Photo of the Week nominations.

 

We would also eliminate the Aesthetics/Originality distinction since I don't think anyone can agree on what Originality is and how it can be factored out of Aesthetics.

 

What would people think of this?

[kalayl]

Brian, that sounds like a great idea. It seems to me that it will improve the quality of the comments and feedback that those of us who need it (that's including me) are yearning. Cannot wait to see it happen.

 

Sven.

[manu_vermeiren]

Elimination of the Aesthetics/Originality distinction and the rating system would be a very good idea, in my opinion.

[chuck_french]

go Brian!

[elaine_roberts1]

While I agree that the distinction between Aesthetics and Originality is probably a bit too blurry for most Photonet raters, I urge you to retain the rating system, in a numeric sense. A year and a half ago, I was a beginner, and my photos were often rated poorly, or average. Sure, it hurt sometimes, but as a result of this feedback, I challenged myself to be more discerning in my work. I looked at higher rated photos, and photos that I liked, and asked "what is it about these that catch one's eye?" In this way I taught myself many of the basic principles of photographic aesthetics and composition. I've had no classes in photography (other than a pj course this last semester which was very basic on the photg side). While I'm no professional now, I feel I have progressed a long way in two years, thanks in no small part to the feedback I received on Photo.net, both in the form of ratings and in the form of comments. There are irresponsible raters of course - on both ends of the spectrum - but one learns to ignore them, and focus on the "average". Five of fifty low ratings are probably just personal quirks or spammers, but forty-five of fifty low ratings means I need to take a closer look at the pic, maybe crop it differently, or re-shoot it.

 

So, anyhow, there's my two cents.

[Wayne Melia]

Like your idea of members being able to have a gallery of their personal favourites (of others' photos). Similar to on your home page but without necessitating knowledge of coding a personal home page?<br>How about having their list of "photographers marked as interesting" being public as part of their community member page? Although on the other side of the coin: 1) some may feel it as an invasion of their privacy, and 2) I for one have some marked as much for their comments as for their photos.<br> Last but not least thanks fo your continuing efforts.

[wavegirl]

The good/verygood/excellent is a great idea. I mentioned once in the GUA forum that only 3 possible ratings would be a goodthing, but this is better. Would also stop people abusing the system both ways, 10s and 1; prevents someone at work who thinks they are doing you a favour getting you in trouble; prevents the destructive raiders from hurting people's feelings in their beginning days when self confidence is hard to come by. I'd also suggest having it possible for the picture to be publicly viewed but open to comments and not ratings as an option.

[brenda marr]

Brian,

 

I also like the idea of a primarily comment-driven system with a few key

ratings which are clearly attached to qualitative terms such as you and Sven

are describing. However, I think there should remain a rating below "Good".

Call it "Needs improvement" perhaps? I think the flaw in the logic of having

someone not rate a photo at all if they feel it's not at least "good" is that it still

leaves the photographer being rated in the dark. If I get no ratings, does that

mean my photo was bad or did people just not see it or feel compelled to

comment/rate? (I note that even under the old 1-10 system I would get only

about 5% of the viewers to rate). If my photo is rated "Good" does that mean

it's really good or that people just used that rating so as to make some kind of

rating/comment?. As a beginner really in need of some honest critique, that

kind of feedback is very important to me, even if the message overall is

"please try again!" As long as people remain constructive, even a sincerely

meant "gee, that really wasn't very good" can help someone learn a lesson

and improve their work.

 

Thanks!

Brenda

[kalayl]

Brenda,

 

Bravo, I could not agree more. Although, the problem still remains: What is the incentive that gets people to rate a photograph in the first place. What if sometimes, I just want to look at a photograph, and even though it's nice, still don't "feel like" rating it. Do we get members to rate in return for something?

[gibikote]

I agree with Sven and Brenda. For us beginners, a suggestion well made is probably more welcome than a number. Sometimes I wonder why my pic has so many views, and no comments... or 7 ratings, with only 1 comment. Maybe comments can be made compulsory even! If possible, that can be made as an option the photographer can choose (for eg "do you want all viewers to compulsarily critique this photograph?") while uploading. Thanks. Sridhar

[kalayl]

Sridahar, <br>

Being a web developer, I can tell you that it's very hard to make anything compulsory on the web. Once the picture has been viewed, it's been viewed, and there's nothing to stop me from just closing the browser or hitting the back button. <br>

I like your idea in principle though, but would prefer something that positively reinforces or encourages users to comment as opposed to making it compulsory. <br>

For example, a reward system based on the number of comments made on photographs, comments which can be vetted by more senior users if they would wish to. <br>

In other words, I can choose to publish a picture and invite comments. People can comment on my photograph, and by commenting are rewarded with something, say for example, they are allowed to upload x number of pictures for y number of comments. If I as the publisher of the photograph disapprove of the comment because I do not think it is a constructive or helpful criticism (obviously people can say they do not like the photograph for xyz reasons, but this should be done diplomatically and maturely), I can ask for another user to vet the comment. <br>

<br>

I know this sounds confusing, but it's an idea I've been thrashing around in this little brain of mine, and haven't had time to arrange properly :)<br>

<br>

sven

[bneylon]

I have been cruising the site rating photos that I like. The category "Originality" doesn't make too much sense to me. I have been treating it as meaning "have you seen shots like this before"? So I look at this great shot that I would love to hang in my living room. But gee, it's a seascape. I've seen hundreds of seascapes in my life. I guess in originality I need to give it a 5 (or less)? Or do I swallow hard and give it an 7 or 8 because "This Is A Great Picture"?

Hard to quantify quality.

[jmacneil]

the main problem isn't the rating system, it's the irresponsible use of it. it drives me nuts to read the comments on a photo that are all titled 7/7 (10/10). sure it's great to get praise, but what's the point of working at shooting a good picture when you can get the same praise for an average one? insightful comments seem harder and harder to find, and comments are generally more thought out than ratings! people need to THINK when they rate--what about this picture makes it good? what takes away from it? how could it be better? i first found this site last september and i almost never perfect rating. suddenly (i don't know what the cause was, i haven't kept up on my photo.net gossip/news) all the photos were coming back with near pefect averages. i almost never see a rating below 4 (new scale) now. how is it possible that all pictures are better than average? doesn't that contradict all laws of averages? if the average rating of photos is 5 or 6 (new scale), shouldn't we up our expectations? with higher ideals, the ratings would be realistic and HELPFUL again.

 

dedicated to all those against the "don't think and rate" policy.

 

jennifer

[sandcruiser]

I would enjoy seeing any changes that result in more comments and fewer numerical ratings. I *like* the idea that people can rate photos based on originality and also on aesthetics, but it seems to me that people rarely do: How often do you see a 3/7 or a 6/2? But it seems to me that there are many original works that aren't very aesthetic or aesthetic works that lack originality.

 

How about being able to see photos that have the most comments, regardless of their rating?? After all, the photos that I find most interesting are often interesting enough to other people for them to submit a comment.

 

Last thought: from what I can tell, I can't submit only a comment in the gallery- if I exclude a numerical rating I can't comment. That seems counter-productive to me. I don't look around enough on the site to have a clear idea of "average" or "excellent" or "terrible" related to other work. I usually just rate at a 4 or 5... but I've since realized that for the competitive photogs out there these "low" ratings really hurt their ego/ranking/spot on the list. And while I don't care about ratings (don't even look unless there is a comment too) I understand that other people DO care and I don't want to detract from their photo.net experience.

 

Sorry to be so long winded, thanks for the space and for this wonderful madcap forum we call photo.net.

[seven]

Steve wrote "Last thought: from what I can tell, I can't submit only a

comment in the gallery- if I exclude a numerical rating I can't comment."<p>

 

You can. When in the 'queue' - type your comment, then press "skip to next

photo" there's absolutely no need to leave a rate where you'd prefer not to.

Words are preferable, numbers a mere shorthand default in my book. <br>

Further, there is a 'sort by number of comments' in the filter accessed through

the high-rated pages.