Michael R Freeman Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 <p>See: http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00U1bb</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 <p>Yes. Bogus ratings accounts are running amok. I'm working on it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_stemberg Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 <p>I think of the last 7 or 8 of Critique requests nearly all of them have had 3/3 's. I know that I am not a top-notch photographer, but I sometimes wonder...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted July 24, 2009 Author Share Posted July 24, 2009 <blockquote> <p><em>I think of the last 7 or 8 of Critique requests nearly all of them have had 3/3 's ...</em></p> </blockquote> <p>With this particular round of bogus accounts, at least the ones that I saw, the bogus ratings ran the full scale from 3/3 to 7/7.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard-just-Leonard Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 <p>The last photo I posted is getting an unusual amount of direct ratings vs the anonymous<br> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9531321">http://www.photo.net/photo/9531321</a><br> yeah, it's an OK shot, but 4 of the ratings come from accounts that seems fishy, ie: joined on the exact same date (2 each) with the exact same number of ratings and no photos, history blurb etc. etc.<br> be kinda nice to keep the ratings, but not if they are bogus :(</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduardo_barrento Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 <p>If peolple had to have some photos posted before ratting, this would not happen...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted July 25, 2009 Author Share Posted July 25, 2009 <blockquote> <p><em>this would not happen...</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Of course it would. A couple of the latest bogus accounts even had a "self-portrait" of the "member" uploaded to the community member page. If a requirement for rating privilege was <em>"must have some photos posted"</em> these silly beggars would simply steal some images from somewhere on the web and upload a "portfolio".</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eduardo_barrento Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 <p>Ok, they could. But how could people from the Photo.net staff delete the anonymous fake ratters? In my opinion that's why when they have an account they give good rates, and use anonimate to give low rates...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 <blockquote> <p><em>"But how could people from the Photo.net staff delete the anonymous fake ratters?"</em></p> </blockquote> <p>They can find and delete them because they are NOT anonymous to the admins. EVERY rating, "anonymous" or otherwise, has an account with a name attached to it in the database, and is visible to the photo.net staff. You can't rate photos on the site, anonymously or publicly, unless you have an account and are signed in.</p> <p>And FWIW, the latest round of fake named raters were not giving just "good rates", but everything from 3/3 to 7/7.</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