The case for a minimum 'standard' for comments / critiques!

[gordonjb]

<p>True enough David but only if you know you have it. The primary symptoms can go unnoticed and in any event tend to go away while the disease progresses and often many years later settles in the brain.</p>

[pnital]

<p>Oh Josh, this is simply unbelievable, really "literature".... with great " knowledge" in Medicine.....<br>

You are completely right.</p>

[gsphotoguy]

<p>I have to agree that banning for what is really a minor issue is extreme. I know you were considering some kind of reward system for "useful" critiques. I realize that has the same issue in that a human probably has to review posts and determine if the reward is deserved. I guess in the end you have probably created the best system you can and we just have to put up with the quirks.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess in the end you have probably created the best system you can and we just have to put up with the quirks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I still think there are things we can do to improve it. I just want people to realize that we can only do so much. We can't stop the cheating nature of some users and we can't stop the fact that some users just don't want to give or recieve useful critique. We can help both situations I think, but we can't solve everything.</p>

[acarodp]

<p>As a general rule, I believe that in every community, luring the people to do "the right thing" is many orders of magnitude more effective than repressing them when they make "the wrong thing". Societies which employ repression over education are never successful. But of course, hanging the bad guy is a fast, spectacular measure that pleases the crowd, while educating is a slow process, mostly hidden, which gives you no adrenaline boost and is difficult to explain to thick heads.<br>

By banning mater-raters and pat-on-the-back commenters, you will perhaps get less lousy critiques, but you will not get a single good critique more. If the point is "I want less critiques" the method works. If it is "I want better critiques / more good critiques" I really have no hope that it can work.<br>

Now: by hitting the lousy commenter, you (hope to) influence a small number of people, whose view of the world made them think that back-patting is the right thing to do. I'm not sure that they are the persons from which I want to get an opinion.<br>

By trying to educate the "silent majority" you target a much larger crowd, a good number of which would most likely give decent comments and opinions.<br>

Now, the problem is HOW, and this has been debated a lot. I'm not really sure about which solution would work better, but I don't really think that the "more police!" approach would get any result.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[WJT]

<p>Hi <strong>Luca</strong> , all that what you say is very true. I can not dispute any of it. But the problem under the present system is that ratings and critiques are not, as Josh has said above, separate issues but really go hand-in-hand.</p>

<p>Most of our members post their work into the Critique Forum with expectations of getting some useful commentaries on their efforts. For these commentaries to accrue the posted works need visibility, they need to be presented to other members. As the Gallery presently works, only photographs that have reached a specific level of ratings are visible, the others fall by the wayside, become invisible, and do not get any comments, mindless or otherwise.</p>

<p>This unhappy situation, directly antithetical to the goals of PhotoNet, is largely caused by the mate-rater game. The unrestrained mutual high-rates, the empty contrived comments, the low-balling of the competition is just plain abusive. The monopolization of the Gallery by a small group of back-slappers is completely unfair to the other members and requires intervention from the Administration. To be fair, the Administration does in fact intervene from time to time but apparently the problem is so large that it requires more than they can give.</p>

<p>An immediate solution would be to change the default view of Gallery from its present search criteria and to eliminate the anonymous ratings. The latter will never be done. So, for those who are concerned about this, we will have to patiently wait for Mr. Choi's new programming. I am hopeful that it will be a positive step. Regards.</p>

[jenniferleigh]

<p>I think standardizing the comments, although a good idea in theory, won't work. The reason I began to comment on photos as much as I have is because, after 5 years of paid membership, and 2.5+ more to go on my current buy-in, is because I have no traffic to my own stuff that I post for critique/ratings, let alone on my portfolio or personal page, so my answer is to start commenting. It worked for a short time, hence my accrued film canister/battery icon, but it has began slacking again. My incentive was and is to HOPE people at least look at my stuff and HOPEFULLY leave some sort of idea on what I could do better in the future. It sucks, but we live in a society now where everyone is used to taking without having to give anything back.<br>

<br />I think maybe if some ideas are or were being considered as ways to combat whats going on, a poll could be placed in the "My Workspace" section so whoever uses that area of their account can have some input by selecting from a multiple choice options or maybe even with a comment box for suggestions on how to help the critique section. Could always try a healty reminder alongside the ratings box, or make the comment box appear constantly alongside the ratings box instead of making it a click away(not necessarily the best idea, but one nonetheless).</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>It seems this thread has just about run its course...but I have to make a comment on the mate- rating deal. During the past few weeks I keep finding a particular member's name attached to such comments as..."nice photo!"... "great pic!"... "beautiful shot!", etc., on almost every photo I leave a comment on. At first I thought i had a stalker following me around, but when I looked at the guy's member page I found that he was commenting on literally hundreds of photos per night...every night. I then understood why he has received well over 50,000 visits to his portfolio and an average rating on his photos that was much higher than I felt his photos would ever receive...if other members were being honest. I wrote the guy an e-mail and didn't make an outright accusation...but let him know that when you offer hundreds of comments every night...and they're never over 4 words in length (including the guy's name)...that it was hard to comprehend that his intentions were good. I apologized in advance if i had somehow misunderstood his motivations, or had somehow overlooked an obviously plausible explanation for his activity ...and asked that he please offer an explanation. He ignored the e-mail...and then his comments began to show up on <em>my </em>photographs. At that point...I wrote him again and asked him to please refrain from leaving his useless, insincere, self-serving "comments" on any of my photos. And of course...he hasn't complied with my request. What "erks" me most is that when you look at the comments left in his portfolio there is nothing but nice comments from people who are expressing their appreciation of his 2-4 word comments of praise. I suspect that most of these people don't spend as much time on site as I do...and simply haven't noticed the obvious pattern. Although I know full well that understanding ...or at least fully comprehending the pathology of such individuals and the apparent lack of self-worth that drives them to spend what must be hours each day in offering meaningless, insincere praise to hundreds of strangers...all just to say..."look at me"..."I'm here"..., I admit I can't help but ponder the possibilities. At times I feel sorry for people like this. I don't know if they're just lonely...if there's been some devastating, traumatic event in their life...if they have diagnosed mental illness...or if they're just self-absorbed attention sponges that couldn't care less that they're making an a** of themselves in front of an international community of their peers. Whatever the case...I'm sure da man is out there spreading his love even as I speak...</p>

[orias]

<p>John, for some people the site is used for marketing and networking. This behavior is present on other photo sites I visit.</p>

[david_l._forney]

<p>I'm a relatively new member, so please consider my comments in context. I honestly thought that some of the repetitive comments I received from the same person was a deliberate attempt to encourage participation by new members, but I see I was mistaken (although that's not a bad idea for those of us who are new and otherwise ignored). And to this point, I was unaware of the reciprocity relationships that exist.<br>

Putting the computer programming challenges aside, consider the following as a simple solution that would address several concerns at once. Photographers participate in this site for many reasons, and in my view there are some photographers here who have extraordinary talent and gifts by any standard (much less compared to me) and some who are not so gifted or experienced (like me), but who love the art form. Comments and ratings to them mean more than to others who's genuinely legitimate interests here are different. Suppose that in the ratings forum there is a box that the person submitting the photograph for review/rating can select (and thus "opt in") "professional review" or probably a better description "in depth review", or other appropriate name. If that button is selected by the submitting photographer, then "ratings" for that photograph from photographers that meet the following 2 requirements would have a weighted value of 2x (or 3x) when considered in the entire pool of ratings for that photograph. Requirement 1: minimum comment of 50 words (or some other appropriate number of words). Requirement 2: Numerical rating must be provided (to put the "comments" in context). No anonymous ratings/comments permitted for this selection. Those who provide these ratings need not be professionals, since (like coaches in sports), those who perform at the highest levels (creating photographs or playing golf like Tiger) may not be the best coaches/teachers, etc. So, it would take both the submitter and the reviewer to agree to have a photograph critiqued/rated using this option and the submitter is rewarded with in depth comments and a higher weighted rating. (Maybe those comments can be a different color?) Submitter indicates he/she is open to in depth review by checking the box, and the reviewer/commenter simply meets the response requirements: provide 50 words minimum and submit a rating (not anonymous). The resulting ratings would have higher weighted value. This would avoid requirements that photographs must have a minimum number of words in comments (which may choke off the number of comments actually submitted), encourage thoughtful comments and still allow for anonymous ratings. The "standards" for this option should not change. There would simply be a reward for greater participation. Some (or many) photographers legitimately may not have the time or desire to do this, which is fine.<br>

While I have your ear, I've also noticed that there are quite a number of extraordinarily beautiful photographs that by any rational professional standard are terrific, but there seems to be one person who rates them "3". If 70 photographers rate a photograph in the range of 6s and 7s, how can it be a 3 (which means that it doesn't even rise to the level of being an average photograph)? Now in any individual case I would understand of course, because perceptions may vary considerably, but these single "3" ratings seem to be pervasive, which frankly is suspicious and the reason for my question. Does this person believe he/she is providing a counter weight to grade inflation? Is this person unhappy? Or does this person know something that the rest of us should know to improve our craft? Well, in the "in depth" selection, that person would have to provide an explanation. I'm sure that my suggestion would not require any difficult programming changes. :) Thank you for listening.</p>

<p> </p>

[gordonjb]

John;

 

I believe that I know of the person you refer to. I used to get those same pointless generic comments from a single individual for a time. I ignored them and they eventually ceased. David hit the nail on the head , it is all about marketing. This person uses PN as a place to solicit clients for multiple business schemes. I still would not completely rule out " self-absorbed attention sponges " or " diagnosed mental illness " as secondary issues.

[david_l._forney]

<p>Since I didn't receive any responses to my post, I sent a separate email to a few of you. Hope you don't mind.<br>

David</p>