ratings that dissapear !

[rome]

<p> i was wondering if anyone had seen this happening before? </p>

<p>i checked my last photo post for critique and it had 6 ratings from which three of them had the names attached. great ratings to, had my photo on the second page for top photos. comeback about two hours later and realized that the the photo had three ratings less and the good ratings with the peoples names, were the ones that vanished. ofcourse the photo took a dump also because of that. i was just wondering if someone can go back and delete his own ratings? if it happen before to someone? or am i the joke of someone out there?</p>

 

[bobatkins]

<p>This question has been asked and answered here many, many times.</p>

<p>Photo.net sometimes detects invalid ratings coming from "rating bots" which randomly rate large numbers of images. Why someone wants to spend their time trying to do this is beyond me, but it happens. When invalid ratings are found, they are removed.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>We had a bunch of fake ratings accounts that were particularly active over the past 24 hours. We deleted the accounts and the ratings along with them. Happens from time to time.</p>

<p>You shouldn't loose sleep over the "good" ratings being gone, as they weren't real ratings from real people anyway. They were just a computer program designed to rate as many images as possible in as short of a time as possible.</p>

[eduardo_barrento]

<p>It happens to me too. But it is strange: the rattings that dissapear are from people with name, including members of Photo.net, isn´t that strange? Fake rates come from members od Photo.net? Also I wrote to Photo.net and didn´t get an answer...</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<p>Why should that be strange? It happens to anyone and everyone who happens to have photos in the critique forum at the time the invalid ratings are given. It's completely random. In order to rate photos, you (or someone setting up "ratings bot") must have an account and be a member of photo.net. Every account, valid or invalid, has a name associated with it.</p>

<p>ALL ratings come from members of photo.net, and those "members" can be bogus. ANYBODY can create an account here with a fake name.</p>

[eduardo_barrento]

<p>Michael,<br>

When I said that is strange was the fact that there are rates of Photo.net members that disappear, then should I think someone is using their names to vote? It is not strange that they only give high scores? Why they dont give low rates if they want spoil the site? Indeed, if someone want so they have the anonymity that, in my opinion (and for many people) only serves to people who want to hide. <br />I hope not to be misunderstood, because my English is not very good.</p>

 

[rome]

<p>now the question is: since there are so many 3/3 aplyed to so many good or not so good photos, isn`t possible that most of them are the result of such "viruses" on photo.net? its a bit beyond me to understand why someone who "hates" mine or someonelses photo, would chose to give a rate of 3/3 when it could go as low as 1/1 to bring the rating way down! is there a "bug" within the system that randomly place those type of ratings;, or in the case of average or less photos, the moderators sometime get a bit to "lazy" to give a more thought to that particular photo because of the volume that needs to be seen?<br>

Josh dont worry for i stoped loosing sleep over the ratings, good or bad. I asked because i did not know and was confused. Thanks for the explanation guys and looking for next one.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Why they dont give low rates if they want spoil the site? "</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who can know what motivation drives these idiots. They have done it ALL ... low rates with no names (anonymous ratings in "Rate Photos" queue), high rates with no names (anonymous), low rates with names (direct ratings in Critique forum) and high rates with names (direct).<br>

-</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... since there are so many 3/3 aplyed to so many good or not so good photos, isn`t possible that <strong>most of them</strong> are the result of such "viruses" on photo.net?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Highly improbable that such a "virus" could hide for long. <strong>Most of them</strong> are actually from legitimate raters who (in <strong>their</strong> opinion) legitimately rated the photo 3/3. Your 5/5 might be another person's 3/3. And vice versa. Then again, I suppose most of those 3/3's could be part of a wider conspiracy (<a href="../off-topic-forum/00Tztm">http://www.photo.net/off-topic-forum/00Tztm</a> ). ;-)</p>

[raybrizzi]

<p>I was just going to check on this myself. I had 22 ratings on a picture yesterday, maybe 10 anonymous, but there were another 12 with names on them too. The ratings varied all over, which I would expect from the kind of picture it was. Today there are 3. Would have been nice just to have another picture with a lot of ratings for that page :)</p>

[f. monteiro]

<p>"Why they dont give low rates if they want spoil the site?"<br>

What have been spoiling the site for a long time and more consistently are the "mates" reciprocal high rates.</p>

[f. monteiro]

<p>By the way, if all the "fair and honest" members that often complain about that could vote regulary and with the honesty that they loudly request, maybe the mate rating would dilute to a residual level. Although I'm on the verge of giving up, recognizing defeat, I've been doing my share as good as I can.</p>

[sonneland]

<p>F.Monteiro<br>

Could not agree with you more about "mates rates". I find that even more unacceptable then the 3/3 brigade. I now do not take any ratings to seriously. They seem to get at everyone at one time or another. Now its just the great images and the few good friends have made here that keeps me here.</p>