Poll: Do You Prefer Anonymous Or Direct Photo Ratings?

[Norma Desmond]

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

<p>Josh--</p>

<p>I think there's a valid reason some people submit for ratings even though they really just want critiques. Exposure. The only way to get to the TRP that most people on the site look at, I believe, is through ratings. I do know there are sections for most views and most critiques but not sure you'll ever get to those without getting people interested through exposure by getting some ratings under your belt. I've long been suggesting that there ought to be some good ways to get exposure aside from high ratings, and was just contacted by two people who saw one of my photos on the front gallery page this week, so that was kind of nice. Otherwise, I know the random generator has probably led to some exposure for some non-highly-rated-photos. I still wish there were some other ways for those not interested in ratings to get the exposure but am sorry to say I have no decent ideas to suggest. It is often exposure that is such a key in getting critiques. All that having been said, the best way to get exposure is by getting out there and giving lots of critiques, asking lots of questions, and participating. But it is really nice when an unknown person, in this mass of public yet anonymous faces we call the internet, makes a comment, someone you haven't already found and commented on. It usually means you've been noticed just because of your work rather than because of your good critiquing style or proclivity to participate in forums or ability to otherwise stay visible.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Congrats on the POW, Stephen. For which photo did you receive the award?</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Fred, that is a legitimate point. But it's sort of a different argument than the one that the one Kieth is making. He just seems to want critiques. So he should use the critique system.</p>

<p>On some level, no matter what we do to it, the ratings system is always going to be a pile of numbers. Numbers will never teach you anything other than "this is what an average set of photo.net users think of my image". If that isn't what you want to learn, don't use the ratings system to learn. Use it for fun, or visibility, or whatever. But you can't get blood from a stone.</p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Actually Josh, I am really moving in this direction. I guess I thought that the numbers would somehow tell me something that would help me improve. What I am finding out is that the numbers don't really tell me anything; I have had images that got really poor ratings, that people would later comment on saying they like.<br /> <br /> I guess I have just been under the impression that if I checked the "critique only" box that I would actually get less reviews because the images would get less exposure. I am still learning photo.net, so please forgive me for being mistaken.<br /> <br /> Also, let me note, I'm not complaining at all here. I think that both the rating and critique systems are great. I truly appreciate having these at my disposal. The critiques I have gotten have been excellent, especially for images that weren't that great. The critique system has helped me improve.<br /> <br /> I guess I was just hoping that people who rate 3/3 anon would at least provide a little feedback to go along with the rating. I've noticed that high ratings tend to have critiques to go with them more often, but the issue for me really is that I would prefer a little criticism so that I have some direction to work on.<br /> <br /> <em>Perhaps I just need to do a little bit more networking if I want more critiques.</em> Thanks for the input Josh.</p>

[spenaloza]

<p>I am against anonymous ratings , because I think people who rate 3/3 and make no comments , either they are afraid someone may "scratch their back" or have no idea of what photography is.</p>

[stp]

<p>My previous comment aside, I think what Josh says is true: a pile of number will give an idea of what a bunch of viewers think of your image, and that does have some value. It's also true what Keith says: in my experience, a "critique-only" photo falls off the PN radar screen pretty quickly. The critique requests that I especially respond to are those in which the photographer asks a specific question about his/her photo. I also appreciate it when the photographer explains why he/she took the photo -- what the intent was, what struck the photographer at the time when the shutter was being tripped, etc.<br>

Calvin, if you're asking the POW question of me, it was for a Ramona Falls shot (in my "water" folder). I received a number of comments that helped me with that photo -- people pointed out things that I had missed entirely. I really appreciate constructive criticism.</p>

[tholte]

<p>Anonymous ratings are the most accurate barometer of what viewers here think of an image. If you get a bunch of 3/3's you know the image is bad. If you get a bunch of 4/4's you know the image is blah, blah run of the mill. If you get a bunch of 5/5's you are pretty sure it is above average compared to most images posted. If you get a bunch of 6/6's, you know you took a decent photo. If you get a bunch of 7/7's, you did in fact take a pretty good photo. Comments and critiques are nice but not more validating, in my opinion, than a bunch of anonymous rates. "If you don't have the guts to put your name next to the 3/3, you have no right to have input." I think just the opposite is true, if you post and can't take some low anonymous rates you shouldn't have the privilege to take photos and post them here. The funny thing that many newbies don't quite get is that if you post some good photos, you will usually get comments, public rates and anonymous rates. If you post images that are not interesting, poorly executed and composed, you will not get any responses at all. Most newbies give up too soon, getting to be a good photographer takes time, patience and hard work. If you are not getting feedback, contact photographers here on PN and ask them to critique your work privately, most of them will glad to do it. Don't be lazy and blame the system. </p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks, Stephen. Breathtaking shot.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>I admire the "survival of the fittest" attitude from Tim. Of course it's easier for a POW winner to adopt that attitude than it is for the average photo.net member.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00TLqA<br /> <br /> Response to Poll: Do You Prefer Anonymous Or Direct Photo Ratings?<br /> <br /> As a recipient of ratings I have no preference. I don't put much personal investment into ratings. But I understand that some do and that's fine.<br /> <br /> As a critic I routinely use the anonymous queue for various reasons. The primary reason is because a little over a year ago I noticed several complaints from some photo.net members that they weren't seeing enough ratings. Not high ratings, not low ratings, just not enough. They recognized that the anonymous ratings queue is an integral part of the TRP process and simply wanted more ratings. More ratings means a better shot at the TRP. You don't necessarily need high ratings to appear on the TRP, even middling ratings will do. I've tested this myself with my own photos, and several times my photos with averages between 4 and 5 appeared somewhere on the TRP, if not necessarily prominently on page 1. (Some folks will never be satisfied unless they're on page 1 of the TRP, but that's another matter.)<br /> <br /> Regarding your observations:<br /> <br /> 1. True. And that's one reason for the anonymous queue. Time and time again, many recipients of ratings have shown they cannot deal with the possibility that not everyone adores their photos. I suspect the majority of anonymous ratings are honest, if not always favorable.<br /> 2. Unfortunately not true. There is a vulnerability in the anonymous ratings queue that has been exploited by a dozen or so people who are gaming the system to their advantage. Google "7/7 anon", "6/6 anon" or variations such as "7/7a", with the "site:photo.net" parameter. This is gaming the system to affirm an exploit of the anonymous ratings queue by leaving a gratuitous compliment that passes as a "critique". This vulnerability will probably be eliminated soon to nullify that type of exploit.<br /> 3. Again, unfortunately, not true.<br /> <br /> If you don't like the written critique you received, even without attributed ratings, you can page through the anonymous ratings queue until you find photos by people you don't like and low-rate their photos. Or if you spot a potential threat to your clique from a photographer who refuses to reciprocate with gratuitous 6/6 or 7/7 ratings, it is possible to page through the anonymous queue to find your targets and low-rate them.<br /> <br /> This can be made more selective by adding people to your list of "interesting people." When they upload a new photo or submit a photo for critique, a notice will be generated. You can visit their user profile, check to see which photo they've submitted for critique and to which genre. This saves time in finding their photo via the anonymous queue. This exploit can be used both to reward a clique and punish those who don't join in the mutual backrub societies.<br /> <br /> Granted, someone would have to be extremely petty to waste time on this, but it can be done. I have no access to data that would reveal whether and how often this actually is being done. But human nature indicates that if it can be done, it will be done.<br /> <br /> I can confirm what Mike Dixon, Josh and other veteran photo.netters have said. I've seen complaints from people who were so accustomed to unfettered praise and ratings of 6 and 7 that they regarded a 5 as an insult.<br /> <br /> And, regarding critiques, I'd estimate that one of ten critiques I write are received rather less than graciously, including childish retaliatory comments on unrelated photos in my own portfolio (which gives me a laugh, since I'm a fan of absurdity). But the ratio of good responses to negative is encouraging.<br /> <br /> I find that a significant number of photo.netters are vain and have unrealistic expectations. The photos they submit that usually generate mostly compliments and praise on photo.net would be ripped to shreds on sites that permit anonymous critiques as well as anonymous ratings. Anyone who doubts that should log in to 4chan /p/ as an anonymous participant and submit their precious photos for feedback. You'll see what brutal honesty really is when there is no cult of personality, social networking gaming nor any consequences or social niceties at play. I won't claim that you'll receive many constructive critiques on /p/ or even much good information, but you will experience a rude shock that will nudge you from your complancency here and renew your appreciation for polite company.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Lex, what is this "4chan /p/" you mentioned?</p>

<p>Actually I was under the impression that this site's users have their share of stringent standards and elitist attitudes.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>For anyone interested, 4chan /p/, which appears to be a chaotic mess compared to photo.net:<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://zip.4chan.org/p/imgboard.html">http://zip.4chan.org/p/imgboard.html</a></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Yeh, the various chans aren't for the faint of heart or easily offended. Most are vulgar and some are downright obscene, tho' /p/ is actually fairly closely moderated compared with some chans (the irony of the usage of the term "chan" in the U.S. is best left to interpretation by those familiar with Japanese idiomatic expressions). The language can be abusive but at least they screen out most offensive images.</p>

<p>Photo.net is an oasis of tranquility and civility in contrast. Which is why I have to scratch my head when anyone complains about "excessive moderation" or censorship here. If not for careful moderation we would lose the intelligent, articulate members who give photo.net credibility and make it a welcoming haven for those who prefer the company of gentle men and ladies.</p>

<p>But I find it helps to visit other sites to regain a sense of perspective.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Aptly put.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p><strong><em>"i would like to have a bit of conversation after that, any of them"</em> </strong></p>

<p>this to me seems to be the whole point of this site and it's one that eludes a lot of people. Other than Tim and some others I don't believe in the ratings to be a barometer let alone an accurate one.You either have to be blind or stupid to not see how it's manipulated by a lot of people. Personally I don't care about that. If it makes people happy why not.</p>

<p>What I don't understand is that I see a lot of really good photographers here that hand out high ratings and give praise on photos that aren't worth the paper they get printed on. Actually I think I do understand. They get caught up in a circle of people who regularly rate and comment on eachothers work.</p>

<p>I myself wouldn't mind if someone tells me that one of my photos sucks as Patrick so aptly put it but in my experience it will offend a lot of people. A lot of people who state they want honest feedback do in fact not want to hear anything negative.</p>

<p>Critical feedback doesn't need to be harsh by any means but the fact of the matter is that most people here haven't got a notion of what a good critique is. And to be honest, some feedback (made by other people) that is described as harsh I find anything but. It's not about having or needing a thick skin but about a willingnes to learn.</p>

<p>Typical of communities like this (and I agree most others are far worse) is that a lot of people seem to be selfdelusional. While it's not that hard to find some real highly talented people here a lot of the work on this site is mediocre which is perfectly normal but nevertheless something that a lot of people don't like to hear.</p>

<p> </p>

[tholte]

<p>Calvin, I think my attitude is more "don't be lazy" than "survival of the fittest". Lex, as usual, has articulated things much better than I could ever do and if you would like to get the equivelant of a BA in photography, go back in the archives and read his postings from the last ten years. </p>

[stamos]

<p>I prefer not anonymous rates but anonymous photo. No name of photographer, no nationality, no continent, no mate, no empathy, just photo. I know PN is not considering this possibility but is the only logical option for fair play (yes, I know mate e-mailing could work against this)</p>

[mallav]

<p>

<p >Actually, I have learnt to derive my own conclusions based on the ratings I have received, whether they are anonymous or direct ratings. Honestly, it’s pretty simple. </p>

<p >First, you look at your ratings and see if there are any outliers (low or high) and simply exclude them. I.e. If you received one 3/3 and five 6/6 you know the picture you took is above average and you did well. </p>

<p >I have also noticed that if your picture is not up-to-par you will not receive any ratings. If you are lucky, you will receive some honest critique with a rating of say 4/5. </p>

<p >I definitely wish I received more ratings but usually 6 to 7 ratings are enough to draw your conclusions about your photograph. </p>

<p >Lastly, not everyone perceives a particular picture the same way. For example, Most of my photographs are HDR composition and I have noticed that most photographs don’t see HDR as “real photography”, which could also result in a low rating. But again, you, the photographer, have to be honest to yourself and critique your own photographs and learn and develop your skills.</p>

<p >Has anyone else seen the same trend as is see? or anything different. I am all ears.</p>

</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks, Tim.</p>

<p>Indeed Lex is part of the heart and soul of this site.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I prefer to think of myself as the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083131/quotes">big toe</a> . Like Sgt. Hulka.</p>