Norma Desmond Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 <p>Major--</p> <p>I agree with you. </p> <p>I think anonymous submissions are the way to go, and I've suggested more than once over the years. I hope it's being considered.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t37traveler Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 <p>I think the problem with the rating system lies in the very subjective of nature categories that are to be rated - aesthetics and originality..... these lend themselves to the vagaries of subjectivity and personal taste, just as happens when one reads poetry or prose or views other art forms. Many people too often forget to leave personal taste at the door when the enter the ratings room. Interesting how often the same photo can get 3/3 and 7/7 (and the signed 7/7 is from someone who is a stranger).... </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgalyon Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 <p>Fred... I like the concept of anonymous submissions. No system will ever be perfect...but one flaw that comes to mind with this idea is that many photographers have such a recognizable style that even without a name attached many of us would recognize the photographer behind the shot as soon as they laid eyes on it. I don't know if it's within the rules to mention a member by name as an example...so I won't, but I'm thinking of a member who exclusively shoots female nude photographs...and I'd know his work from a mile away. I realize that many members are so diverse in style and subject matter that this <em>wouldn't</em> be an issue. Is this "flaw" that big a deal? Not sure. But I'd take most anything over the system we now have in place. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christa Binder Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 <p>Some people are never happy. For example, I received a nasty email for rating a photo 5/6, the person who sent me the email said that I should have rated the photo a 6/6, and the photo did not even belong to them!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 <p>Christa, if you or anyone else ever receives a harassing e-mail from any photo.netter or any harassing, abusive or threatening message on a discussion forum on critique comment section, please report it to: abuse@photo.net</p> <p>It's essential to eliminate this type of harassment. In my opinion anyone who attempts to badger another photo.netter on an individual basis about ratings or critiques should be suspended or banned from the site. And some photo.netters have been banned for exactly that reason, including for badgering on behalf of someone else's photographs.</p> <p>As a moderator I'm accustomed to a certain amount of harassing e-mails - it comes with the turf - but no other photo.net member should have to put up with that.</p> <p>Disagreeing with another photo.netter within the context of a discussion online over a critique is not harassment. But in my opinion e-mailing another member to harass them or badger them is crossing the line.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>John<br />It’s interesting that you should make this statement :<br />“many photographers have such a recognizable style that even without a name attached many of us would recognize the photographer behind the shot as soon as they laid eyes on it”<br />This is precisely what I’m thinking when I suggest an anonymous submission! Perhaps there are others out there that are capable of producing these works that are every bit as good (or better) as the ones that you/we have preconceived as trademark to another artist. And if you leave favorable remarks and/or ratings you would actually be accepting the photo and not just the artist.<br />I’m reminded of a story by Eric Clapton… When the song Layla was released, it was not an instant hit… No one realized that Deric and the dominoes was actually Eric Clapton among others. As soon as people realized Clapton was a party to it, the song sky rocketed.<br />I know this may seem a little naïve, but maybe it would be a nice change of pace to start judging photos for what they are and not necessarily for where they come from!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent_jaussi Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 no rating system might accomodate the vast spectrum of behaviors and expactations that the different people have in photo.net which is a fantastic photo dedicated site with social ties...the problems some have or seem to identify have no easy solutions and I personally think it is illusory to think there can be...mate rating and/or revenge/retailiation/bad behavior will always exists...the only thing that can be done is fight against unacceptable behavior from case to case and let people be what they are for the rest... If people want high quality qualified judgment on their work there are contests with jury, publication requests, workshop with pro etc...but I agree it's probably easier and less costly in terms of effort and time to get a couple of high rates from relatives one way or another to let you think you're a photographer (I say it freely because I am not a photographer and never will be) and then complain about the rating system in general... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgalyon Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p><em>"...maybe it would be a nice change of pace to start judging photos for what they are and not necessarily for where they come from</em></p> <p>Major, I just woke up, didn't sleep well...so maybe I'm missing something from your message.<br> I totally agree! My point (and maybe I didn't do a good job of expressinig it) was that <em>because </em>the style of some photographers is so easily recognizable that friends and mate rating buddies would still have the ability to find their pals photos and rate based on (as you said) where they came from...and not for what they are. As I said, not so cure that this is a major issue...as, how many photographers have a style that is that easily recognizable? Perhaps not so many as to greatly nullify the intent of anonymous submissions. Probably just a minor imperfection in such a system.</p> <p>As for Derik and the Dominoes...I knew who they were, knew Clapton was in the band, bought their first album. But...was so used to playing Cream on an absolute daily basis...an almost religious experieince, that I had a hard time dealing with this new band with it's dorky name. But Layla...knowing that it was Clapton and Duane Allman playing dual leads on the axe was great in itself, but the song could easily stand on it's own as a rock n' roll anthem for the ages...and it has. Still get chill bumps anytime I hear it. God I miss those days! ;) jg</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p >Hey John</p> <p >I shouldn’t have directed that statement toward you. My intentions were not to negate what you wrote or to suggest that your point wasn’t clear. I was merely thinking out loud and what you wrote triggered a thought. I am in wholehearted agreement with you on one thing for sure… Derek and the Dominos! Really? They couldn’t have come up with something better than that? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robwilson Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>I think that in reality people won't mind getting a 3/3 if they know that it is a 'genuine' 3/3. Unfortunately there are many clear cases when people are just being ar2eholes for the 'fun' of it. Trolling is ubiquitous throughout the internet, and there is no reason why it shouldn't happen here as well.<br> Collective backslapping and/or hero-worship can be just as annoying as well. Some people can put anything up and they get a pile of marks. I have noticed ancedotally that there seems to be a correlation between the marks a person gives and the marks they receive. I suspect that testing could well show that this hypothesis as correct.<br> Nude photos average much higher than street photos, that is also annoying especially as I don't do the former!<br> I have only ever had 2 people be brave enough to give me a 3/3 with their name visible. And it actually made me think and realise that the photo in question was rather boring. I soon removed it.<br> My suggestion for this issue would be to have some control over average ratings. If the average rating that the person is giving is over say 5 or under 4 (or whatever figure the mods feel appropriate) then they are warned or whatever. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p ><em > “no rating system might accommodate the vast spectrum of behaviors and expectations…”</em></p> <p >I shudder to think that PN has reached the very pinnacle of perfection with the current rating system. </p> <p ><em >“to let you think you're a photographer”</em></p> <p >1) Pick up camera </p> <p >2) look through view finder</p> <p >3) make adjustments and release shutter… Congratulations! You’re a photographer. </p> <p >Now whether or not you can sell your photographs… that’s a whole different critter. I really doubt there’s a very large percentage of a people on PN making a living through their photography but, they are paying the yearly subscription fees and would like to believe that the <em >little elves</em> here at PN are endeavoring to make this site everything it can be! Personally I think they’re doing a pretty good job.</p> <p >And to whom it may concern… When you whine or grumble about others expressing an opinion… You’re complaining!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent_jaussi Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 agreed....apart maybe on the complaining generalisation, but I am not a philosopher and thus won't argue...I particularly enjoy the American idol analogy from Lex on the rating thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p >Yea, I would probably retract that statement about complaining if I could. You're right, Lex does have a pretty good slant on it, in comparisons to American Idol...</p> <p >That being said (for those who don't suspect already) a couple of my many flaws include the fact that I’m <em >thin</em> <em >skinned and egotistical</em>… Not a great combination for photo hack throwing it out there for the world to chew on. Have a good day!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>Sorry, changed my mind about posting something. Enjoying the conversation.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent_jaussi Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>no irony about philosophy intended Fred...I understand your points and agree with them..it's just that I feel caring too much about the other's behaviour is well above my shoulders and everybody should feel responsible to make this place a worthy experience which it is anyway to my opinion...getting rates (good or bad) is a consequence but can never be part of the intention of someone serious about photography...besides and just to clarify, for me it's the intention that defines a photographer and not the collection of pretty images as pretty and as numerous as they can be...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mt4x4 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>Ok.... so we have it on the table what people possibly think 3/3 means.<br /> <br /> How about 3/3 anon? Does it mean, "I think your photo stinks, but I don't have the gumption to rate it directly....yet at least give you a critique to tell you why I think it stinks" ?<br /> <br /> If someone wants to give me a 3/3, fine. But I think they should at least comment on <strong>what it was about the photo that they thought was so below average or what it was about the photo they disliked so much.</strong> <br /> <br /> It just doesn't make any sense to me why someone would even BOTHER to rate a photo 3/3 w/o leaving a comment on why they didn't like the photo. Unless of course, they had a less than positive reason for rating 3/3.<br /> <br /> IMO (and only my opinion) if you want to rate a photo AT ALL you should be REQUIRED to leave a comment. Yes, this may be tedious, and probably generate a lot of 6/6 Great work type of posts, but at least people's names would be attached to their rating, <strong>giving them more incentive to put thought into the photo and what rating to give</strong> .<br /> <br /> I realize that the anon rating system is probably there to get more plentiful and honest feedback. But I think that it has gone in the opposite direction. By being able to rate anonymously, you can rate however you want, <strong>with little thought</strong> . A non-anonymous rating system would probably provoke a little more thought when leaving ratings.<br /> <br /> Maybe I'm just missing something.<br /> <br /> NOTE: Thank you VERY VERY much to those P.Net users that do take time to write feedback and also do put a little thought into a rating before posting it. Thank you very much, your critiques have helped me greatly!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p><strong>Keith--</strong></p> <p>A couple of things to consider.</p> <p>You've been very gracious here to thank those who've commented on your work. That's quite nice. I know you've mentioned in other threads how much you'd like feedback. We all like it. Part of the way the system works is dependent on give and take. For instance, having read your comment in one of the threads a while back, I looked at your portfolio and commented on one of your photos (Conscript) on June 16. You never responded to my comment, either by acknowledging my own comment on your photo's page or by continuing a dialogue with me about it or by coming over to my portfolio and commenting on one of mine. I certainly don't expect a tit for tat -- I commented on one of yours so you need to comment on one of mine -- but some give on your part would be nice. You have made only one comment on anyone's work since June 16 and only 32 in the whole time you've been here.</p> <p>I'm here mostly for dialogue. I am less interested in sole comments than I am in establishing some relationships with various photographers, whereby we begin to know each other, trust each other, and speak openly to each other about our photos. That takes a bit of work. Had you responded back to me with some substance, either about your own photo or portfolio or about one of mine, likely I would have engaged you again and we might have established some sort of dialogue and photographic rapport. As it is, you didn't give much in return and I fear you're reaping what you've sewn.</p> <p>Also, you've insisted on comments to go along with 3/3s but say nothing about comments to go along with 6/6s. It sounds as if you may only want negative rates to be backed up with justifications whereas you may be more willing to assume that the positive rates are genuine and well thought out. Doesn't it seem reasonable to want comments to back up positive and negative rates, thereby enabling you to assess the rate either way and whether you can truly learn from the positive or negative rate. Even when I get a positive comment, I go to the portfolio of the person commenting to put their taste and comment into context.</p> <p><strong>Laurent--</strong></p> <p>Though I consider myself a philosopher, I didn't take negatively or personally anything you said. I admire both your photography and the things you contribute to me and to the site in writing.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>Keith--</p> <p>As for my last paragraph, in rereading your post I see you made it clear that ALL ratings should be accompanied by a comment. I guess I was focused on the emphasis of 3/3 in your first three paragraphs, but want to acknowledge that you did go further than that. Thanks.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mt4x4 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>Hi Fred,<br /> <br /> I agree with everything you have said. Thanks for your response and for your comment on my photo. I have looked at your portfolio, and do plan on continuing a dialogue, its just more of a time issue. I really want to make sure to take in your portfolio before I leave any comments. I feel that I owe it to you to take the time to do that, rather than leaving a blind comment.<br /> <br /> Just to let you know, I have continued dialogues with most of the people who have critiqued my photos or left me comments. It is just a matter of having the time to get back to everyone. I don't know how anyone would be able to tell, but I have not been nearly as active on this site for the last couple of months. This is due to it being our busy season at work. I haven't had much time to make photographs either. Which is a shame, because this is one of my favorite seasons (in Montana).<br /> <br /> As far as how I view the rating system. I personally would prefer not to rate if I don't have time to also comment. When I was new to photo.net I did make quite a few ratings without comments, but that is because at the time I really did not understand the value of leaving a comment (for both the rater/commenter and photographer). Now I try to comment any time I rate. I feel that commenting/critiquing is more valuable than ratings numbers. Of course, this is just all my opinion (as I said before) and other people may feel differently. I don't think the ratings system is bad, actually I think it is great. I personally just feel that critiques are much more valuable.<br /> <br /> So why don't I post my photos for critique only? I would, but when you post for critique only, you do not get the same visibility as you do when posting for ratings. I could be wrong about this, but it seems that it has also been confirmed by others.<br /> <br /> Anyways, I'm not trying to trash on anyone or any part of the site. I think the site/community is great. If I didn't, I wouldn't come back or subscribe. I'm just trying to provide a little feedback, that's all.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gt1 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>"It just doesn't make any sense to me why someone would even BOTHER to rate a photo 3/3 w/o leaving a comment on why they didn't like the photo."</p> <p>It's common practice on customer service surveys to require comments for low ratings. Personally, I like the idea of encouraging comments for 3/3 ratings. I want to know how to improve much more than I want to know what I'm already doing right.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>Greg--</p> <p>If someone leaves you an unaccompanied 7/7 all you know is that they think you are doing a lot right. But you don't know what that is. So nothing in particular is positively reinforced and you really haven't learned anything other than they like it. Pretty much the same, on the other end of the spectrum, as what you learn from a silent 3/3, simply that they didn't like it.</p> <p>Very often, I get comments along with high ratings or even words of praise that I learn a lot from. Because sometimes, even though someone likes a photo of mine they will say something that leads me to believe they didn't get what I was after and if enough people miss my point, I learn that I have to communicate what I wanted a little differently. Also, sometimes I will just learn something about "seeing" from what someone says, even something positive. It doesn't just tell me what I'm doing right, it communicates to me about photography. I learn from that kind of communication.</p> <p>People tend to think of critique as specific suggestions, which may be part of it. But a significant part of learning about making photographs comes from reaction and discussion as much as suggestion. Often, I want the photographer, especially when it's me, to consider other ways they or I might have approached a photograph. It's the photographer, not the critic, who should be doing the problem solving. The good critic will help with that process but not always supply answers. So, opening up a dialogue about various considerations can help that as much as telling someone, for example, to lighten up the foreground or crop out the telephone pole.</p> <p>Many 7/7s are given out because the rater likes photographs that are "beee-autiful" or "pretty." If that's the case, I want to know that. Because it's very important information. Not all 7/7s are equal. A good explanation will enlighten, not just please.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gt1 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>"Pretty much the same, on the other end of the spectrum, as what you learn from a silent 3/3, simply that they didn't like it."</p> <p>I completely understand your point. Just to elaborate more on why I think explanations of 3/3s are more helpful for me: </p> <p>It's more likely that if I get a 7/7 then I'm going to have a good idea on what's good about an image of mine. Also, if I get a 7/7 I at least know I'm doing something right, and I can focus on the problems with my 3/3s because there's a good chance they're not the opposite of what was good about the 7/7. I just think I would learn much quicker knowing what to fix.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonmestrom Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 <p>Rating is a bit like making love when you are young. Either you meet a frigid one which is impossible to satisfy or you end up with one who simply can't get enough of it. Either way it leaves you feeling inadequate.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tholte Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 <p>Comments are great and everybody loves them. The problem is that who is going to waste their time commenting on an image they don't like and that they consider bad? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonmestrom Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 <p>Tim I don´t know if that is true and even more importantly on the other side of the scale there are a lot of people who state that they don´t comment on photos that they think are good. If you take all that to its obvious conclusion nothing much is left, is there.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now