Poll: Do You Prefer Anonymous Or Direct Photo Ratings?

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>I understand the accountability school of thought. That is, raters shouldn't be able to drop 3 / 3s while giving neither justification nor even identity.</p>

<p>However I like anonymous ratings for the following reasons:<br /><br /><br />1) they allow for brutal honesty</p>

<p>2) they preclude the possibility of "you scratch my back, I scratch your back"</p>

<p>3) they prevent retaliation<br /><br /><br />What's your vote?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Cal</p>

[vancouverphotographer]

<p>Yeah there's no perfect system including the one currently in place .... right now I guess the ratings are supposedly out of 7 but anything below 3/3 is not counted - so what does a 3/3 mean? a 3/7 which is below average or is it more like 1/5 which is a disaster? brutal honesty is good but without accountability you run the risk of having idiots just rate 3/3 maliciously and make a bad name for honest 3/3 raters.<br>

back scratching cannot be avoided entirely of course<br>

but my vote is for full accountability despite the negatives to it - i think most people here are mature enough not to go retaliating if they get a 3/3</p>

[mike dixon]

<p><em>i think most people here are mature enough not to go retaliating if they get a 3/3</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

It doesn't take a 3/3 rating to set some people off. I remember cases where people would go on a retaliatory low-rating rampage because someone insulted their photo with a 5/5 instead of the 7/7 it so obviously deserved.</p>

[aarkp]

<p>1) they allow for brutal honesty</p>

<p>Agree with brutal perhaps but not with honesty. If you feel the rating you're about to assign is fair, then it doesn't really matter whether you tag your name with it. If it's not a fair rating (and only the rater can really know) then it is dishonest anyway. <br>

.<br>

2) they preclude the possibility of "you scratch my back, I scratch your back"</p>

<p>Unfortunately that's not true. Search this forum with keyword "anonymous rating" and you'll find that some have found ways to game the system and skew the ratings in favor of their 'group'. A recent thread "All Time Highest Rated" is quite revelatory.<br>

.<br>

3) they prevent retaliation</p>

<p>Only so far as low ratings go...<br>

.<br>

If this is a poll I register my vote against anonymous rating.</p>

[aldrich]

<p>Direct. Stamp what you say. If you don't have the guts to put your name next to the 3/3, you have no right to have input. You saw my 3/3 on your apparent 7/7. Wanna come after me for it? Fine. I couldn't care less about ratings, they're just for fun. I'm all about the comments. Bring it on :-).</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Mike, sadly I can definitely see that happening.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Rajat, regarding 1), some may be worried about appearing impolite. They may also fear retribution as mentioned in my third point.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what you mean about skewing ratings in favor of groups in your response to 2). Can you please explain?</p>

 

[mark_chartrand]

Either is fine with me. I do not rate. I feel it serves no purpose. I critique only. I try to be fair and honest.

 

Mark

[patricklavoie]

<p>I know what i say, i meant what i say..and im adult enough to stand on what i say. I dont need to be anonymous to tell someone that i dont like his images, but you need to be a adult to be able to explain why.</p>

<p>Just saying that a image suck, anonymous or not doestn help. In french whe say "add some meat to the bone" menaing that you should add some information to a critique..or else its useless and free.</p>

<p>You need a external vision on your images, im your man..good or bad i will tell you, but with information to help.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Mark, to a photographer looking to improve his craft, critiques are far more important. Ratings, I think however, have some value as a barometer of how generally well-received one's image is.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>The only person whose opinion about your images counts is you.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<blockquote>

<p>The only person whose opinion about your images counts is you.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>with that mentality, no wonder why a lot of photographer sucks..If 1 person tell you your image are not great, it could be a matter of oppinion..when 20 person said your images are not that good..its time to listen, and make the appropriate change..if you care.</p>

<p>In the end YOU are the only judge, but listening to another fellow photographer could help.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Patrick, would you expect explanation from someone who rates not 3 / 3 but 5 / 5 or higher?</p>

<p>I feel most would not, and so are not really balanced in demanding justification only for poor ratings.</p>

 

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Wow. Patrick speaks the truth like it's going out of style. Sorry, Bob.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p><em>i think most people here are mature enough not to go retaliating if they get a 3/3</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You would be completely wrong about that. The whole reason that the ability to rate anonymously was added to the site was because of the pathetic way that, even normally good users, would react to low ratings. Harassment, revenge ratings, and attacks were the order of the day. Absolutely disgusting.</p>

<p>Mate-rating will be solved by programming and math. There is no other way around it. Being public or anonymous won't make a difference. Public ratings hinder honesty, there's no way around that either. It has been admitted over and over by good honest raters that even they have a hard time rating images by their friends honestly when their names are attached to the rating.</p>

<p>And please remember, every single thing that we have <b>ever</b> tried to do as far as the ratings system is concerned has been in response to cheaters and childish jerks. The site gets all the blame for how awful things are, but it's those people who are screwing everything up for everyone else.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>And also, please remember that ratings are not supposed to have explanations required behind them. They are just numbers. A rough gauge of "what do you think of this". The critique system is for learning and explanations.</p>

<p>Ratings system:<br>

Person1 - "Do you like this?"<br>

Person2 - "Yeah, it's a nice photo"</p>

<p>Critique system:<br>

Person1 - "What do you think of this photo?"<br>

Person2 - "It doesn't really speak to me because I think the composition favors that bush in the foreground and distracts from the woman. You could try re-cropping it to cut out the bush, but I'm not sure how well the image would work as a square."</p>

<p>Everything I'm going to do moving forward will be to reinforce this.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>You're awesome, Josh. Thanks for that detailed elucidation.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>I prefer direct. Why? Because I generally get a critique with it, which is much more important to me than the #s.<br /> <br /> I also like direct because it gives me a link to another persons portfolio so I can check out some of their stuff too. Its nice for networking. <br /> <br /> I don't mind harsh critiques. I'd much rather have a harsh critique than a 3/3 anon. Actually 3/3 anons really annoy me, because if someone thinks my photo is that bad, I would at least like some advice on how to make a better photo.<br /> <br /> +1 for Direct Photo ratings<br>

-1 for Anon.</p>

[vancouverphotographer]

<p>In regards to whose opinions counts - I think every honest opinions counts to me ... when I'm taking photos I am taking them to share with others so I want to know how they feel about the image.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Valid points, Keith.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>I prefer direct. Why? Because I generally get a critique with it, which is much more important to me than the #s.<br>

I don't mind harsh critiques. I'd much rather have a harsh critique than a 3/3 anon. Actually 3/3 anons really annoy me, because if someone thinks my photo is that bad, I would at least like some advice on how to make a better photo.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then why are you submitting your images for ratings at all? It sounds like all you want is critique.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Calvin i forgot a important thing, as Josh poitn out..rating is rating. I dont expect people to explain anything..but in a real life situation, or if i could ask someone to get some feedback, i would love to ear more than just good / bad / mediocre..i would like to have a bit of conversation after that, any of them.</p>

<p>I am where i am now because of good / bad comment on my style, retouching or picture..You should always pay attention to critiques, and keep what suite you.</p>

[stp]

<p>I think photo ratings, in general, are a waste of time (I rarely give any, and I very rarely ask for any). A single number tells me relatively little: it says a viewer "likes" the photo or "dislikes" the photo (or is "so-so" regarding the photo). I don't know why the photo is liked or disliked, whether it's something inherent in the photo or in the viewer's set of likes and dislikes. A rating tells me far more about the viewer than it does about my photograph. I much prefer constructive comments: what elements work well, what elements don't work so well, how the photo might be improved, suggested changes and cropping alternatives, etc. Those kinds of comments are actually helpful; they give me ideas on processing my photo or what I might do differently the next time in photograph the subject.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Agreed, Patrick.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I'm indifferent. I think ratings and critiques are helpful because there really are people out there who need or want some kind of feedback. It's probably more important to get a little experience with requesting, receiving and applying feedback than it is to get one point of feedback on an image itself.</p>

<p>Who does the rating (do they reflect what your viewers would think)? How does that apply to future success? Have you built up enough of a thick skin to take it sometimes? Also, some small history of at least a little success in photography can help people along, and give them the confidence to improve.</p>

<p>It's probably more important to be able to go through the process of ratings and comments and critiques so that you can handle yourself as a photographer and artist.</p>

<p>I've received some brutal chewings in my life; some of them were justified. Being able to take the bad news, right or wrong, is just part of being experienced. While I don't think mate-rating numbers inflation is a great idea; I'll tell you that I think that if you just crucified someone on Day One, you could crush a potential professional.</p>

<p>There's a way to handle giving and receiving it. That's an important part of the process. The mechanical method of doing this is unimportant to me. Leadership and cultivating is more important than some score. But, there was a time in any photographer's career, back when he might not know when to open the back of the film camera, or what was the difference between brightness and contrast; there's a point in there where it's more helpful to be soft.</p>

<p>I've worked in industries and subcultures where aggression and pursuit of ideals are important. Meanwhile, keep in mind, anyone with access to a camera could be a photographer. Not everyone's set up for running a triathalon under the guidance of a professional sports coach, or ready to take the "Ride to Doom" to get the first day of BASIC Training.</p>

<p>There's something to be said for constructive softness that teaches.</p>