Why is it...?

[karl.jahr]

I am noticing that in general anonymous raters rate lower than registered members. Since most of the registered

members rating my photos are very good and do not need mate rates, I tend to pay more attention to them.

Therefore I am also puzzled that PN values anonymous ratings for picture of the month rather than those of

people who have proven themselves.

[ifti]

Anonymous rating tend to say as it is. Registered users tries to be polite and liberal.

[mark_chartrand]

Aren't you really interested in why your photographs are rated low? I assume you want to know what you can do to make

your photographs better or more appealing to viewers. Isn't that why people ask for ratings and critiques? If you got only high

ratings and praise it seems there would be little point in submitting your photographs. You would be so good that you wouldn't

be able to benefit from any comments.

 

Mark

[fischerphotos]

I don't rate, but if I would I would at least try to be nice about a low rating. I would rather comment there photo and tell them what I think can be improved.

[Tom Wiggins Photography]

Let me add my 2 cents here, while I agree that some may rate images better when they take credit for the rating. I also think that anonymous ratings are too often wacky when they are a 3. I believe most of the photos, with few exceptions are at least a 4 and I do agree that some members tend to always rate photos high, but frankly the law of averages will level out both ends of the spectrum. I agree what counts in the constructive critique and I try to make sure I do a few each day as my contribution to this site. Tom

[karl.jahr]

There may be another answer: Maybe registered users are like me and rate only pictures they consider better than 5/5 (and add a critique) whereas anonymous users rate without explaining why.

[lex_jenkins]

Karl, you've given some photos ratings of 1 and 2. And these won't show to the person who received those ratings, making your ratings, in effect, "anonymous." I don't doubt that you believed those ratings were appropriate, based on your own criteria.

 

And since your total number of ratings given exceeds your total number of critiques and comments given, you haven't explained why you rated as you did in every situation.

 

Why not allow the same benefit of the doubt to others who choose to use the anonymous ratings queue? Why not assume that the vast majority of folks using that ratings queue also show good judgment, as you almost certainly have?

[bobatkins]

Unless things have changed, ratings are anonymous depending on where they are given (i.e. which part of the site they are given from), not whether or not the rater is a registered member of the site. In fact unless you are a registered member of the site I don't think you can give a rating of any type from anywhere on the site.

 

As I understand it ANY rating given from the "Rate Photos" interface appears as an anonymous rating, no matter who gives it. It's not anonymous to site Administrators (I can see who gave what ratings), but users can't see who gave what to who and so it appears as "anonymous".

 

This really should be in the FAQ as it comes up at least once a week and there's a huge amount of misunderstanding on the subject.

[seismiccwave]

Being a good photographer and mate rating are very two very different issues. Generally raters/voters tend to be more

comfortable when they are anonymous. Also the rating program here may be the reason. When you want to rate a

photograph anonymously you go to rate photograph and you are flipping over all the photos in fairly quick succession.

When you know a register member is rating your photograph it is because the member was browsing through the critique

forum and looking at the thumbnail. When I look at the thumbnail I actually spend a little more time looking at the bigger

picture if the thumbnail is interesting. I also tend to skip the genre that I am not interested. Whereas when I am doing a

mass rating I don't have a choice (well I do actually) and I do give a rating even though I am not impressed with the image.

[michaellinder]

Mark:

 

Indeed, I am quite interested in the reasons why some of my photographs are panned (in the critical sense). However, it appears that very few PN participants who have rated them low have any interest in providing the reasons. And, folks, please don't tell me that you can't supply any feedback while entering, or after entering, anonymous ratings in the "Rate Photos" interface. It just takes maybe two mouse clicks to be able to critique a photograph that appeared on that interface.

[srichardson]

I'm also interested in why my photos get the ratings they do. I post mine here hoping that someone with a lot more experience than I have will tell me what is good or bad about my shots. I am not offended by a low rating, because different people like different things, but I would love for more experience people to help me improve my shots. At least let me know why it is a bad photo so that I will know what to do to make it better the next time. When you get a low rating with no explanation, it leaves you wondering what was wrong, and not knowing how to improve things. I'm as guilty as most at not contributing a complete critique, but I try most of the time to at least let the photographer know what it is about his/her photo that I like, or what I feel makes the image work for me. In some ways, I don't feel as though I have the creditability to tell someone what is right or wrong with their image. I'm guilty as mention in a previous post in that I only take the time to look at photos that I find interesting. I think the fact that if your photo has been viewed a lot, even if it only has several ratings says something about the shot. There is something that captured the attention of the lookers. I also think that most people don't take the time to critique or rate a photo unless they find it really good in their mind.. I am by far a great photographer, so I don't expect to get a lot of really high ratings. I really do value the inputs from others that do take the time to tell me what is good or what is bad. I have noticed that the really good, "top photographers" seem to get a lot more critiques and the people doing the critiques seem to be more open with their answers. Maybe the answer is for everyone to take more time and critique the photos, help one improve their work. We all have to be open and willing for someone to maybe hurt your feelings about your work. If you want to get better, you have to know what to do to make it that way. If creditable people tell me my shot sucks, and are willing to tell me why, and how to improve it. I will be grateful to them. I know I will start today offering more details in my critiques and hope that everyone else will too.

 

Thanks,

Steven

[michaellinder]

"If creditable people tell me my shot sucks, and are willing to tell me why, and how to improve it. I will be grateful to them." Amen, brother. Some people can improve their skills and produce better photographs just by osmosis. All it takes is to look at the shots posted by the PNers who get the best ratings. That may work for some, but certainly not for all - not for me. What does work is honest, no punches pulled, no frills, no b.s. feedback. I am grateful for those willing to provide it, and I am appalled at those who can provide it but won't.

 

Thanks for telling like it is.

 

michael