Is it me...

[robwilson]

<p>Is it me or does there seem to be a direct correlation between how you rate and how high the ratings you receive?<br /> If I am right on this, then maybe we should all grow up a little...</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Rob</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Rob, you've got an enviable portfolio filled with great photos made in a wide variety of locations around the world. What are you doing worrying about those numbers?</p>

<p>An adventuresome photographer only needs to concern himself with six kinds of numbers: f/stop, shutter speed, film speed, invoice total, hotel room address, and the phone number of that hot chick he met in a bar.</p>

<p>All other number systems are inconsequential, except for the laws of trig, which I find sacrosanct.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Rob--</p>

<p>For the most part it's true. It's why I tend to rate anonymously more than with my name. Because the reciprocal ratings are a problem. Many of us are grown up and many aren't. Gotta live with it. Even those of us who are grown up act childish now and then (even me . . . I've been told).</p>

<p>There are several fairly obvious mate rating groups. Look at those who get upwards of 25 to 30 rates on many of their photos and follow the numbers. In 9 out of 10 times, they will be mostly 6s and 7s. Then check out who they've rated recently. Same names, same numbers. </p>

<p>The administrators say they're working on strengthening the rating/critique system. We shall see.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>What could be called "circle-jerk" ratings where either a low or a high rating is 'rewarded' with the same kind of rating by the ratee is a problem. I don't know how it could be totally eliminated without doing away with non-anonymous ratings altogether.</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>John’s got the answer.</p>

 

<p>Even if everybody were truly sincere in how they rated images — and that’s never

going to happen — they’d <em>still</em> be meaningless, because no two people

will have the same standards. At the least, the average, mediocre photographers will probably

inflate the ratings of the best (because they’re simply awed by what they see and

haven’t a clue about how it was done), and the best photographers will be overly brutal with

their peers (because they’re nitpicking minor details that probably don’t really

matter).</p>

 

<p>What’s actually useful are critiques. So long as the critic is sincere (and it should be

pretty obvious if so), it’s useful. Serious nit-picking critiques are probably the most useful, of

course. Even if you don’t agree with them — say, because you intentionally broke the

rule of thirds and the critic is calling you out for it — there’s a good chance that the

criticism will have you re-evaluating the work in a different light, which is good. Even fawning

“OMG! 11/11!” critiques are useful to the extent that they let you know that you did

something somebody likes. They might not help you to improve, but they should at least provide

incentive to keep trying.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,<p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>It might be worth considering a less negative aspect of the buddy rating and critiquing that goes on. It is how smaller circles develop in a large community like PN. Without the circle jerk aspect many would find PN an unrewarding empty place. Often a characteristic of a clique is to pat each others back. mutual positive support. Because of the fly by aspect of photo sharing on the net there is some comfort to be found in familiar people. The give and take seems to peter out for most if you don't think much of the work, or voice it. Not that you shouldn't express an heartfelt opinion but it is very challenging to a relationship. And i suppose that is where the maturity is most useful. Pragmatism inspires many mutual high ratings and positive critiques. It seems to fit many peoples use of PN for making and maintaining new relationships..But it is misleading as quality of the rating . </p>

[revonda]

<p>So what does this all mean? If a person spends 24/7 on here rating images and chatting its a guarantee their pics will be in top spots? And if pics are in top spots does it truly mean anything outside of photo.net? Just asking?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Wow, Josh, what a great point. I was actually a little self conscious even when making my point about ratings, because I am part of a fairly regular circle of people who critique each other and there is clearly some reciprocal patting on the back that goes on. We try to also be honest and negative when appropriate and that works to various extents, depending on the egos involved and the specific situation. But, developing a familiar circle has been a very valuable part of PN and I take your point quite seriously that it likely has great benefits in terms of encouragement, learning, growth, dialogue, sharing, and visibility. It's not something I've heard articulated before in these discussions and I think you've made a valuable observation here.</p>

<p>That being said, there are certain site rewards (prizes?) that go along with high ratings. Images go into the Top Rated Photos based on ratings and that can be one of the few means of really gaining visibility on this site. It takes time and energy to develop a critique circle and, even then, it's usually a fairly small group, which does get those who participate some worthwhile visibility. But, getting to the Top Rated Photos is kind of a quicker way to do that and achieves more site-wide visibility and is based solely on ratings. So, many feel that doing stuff to pad each others' ratings is actually a form of cheating. And I think in many cases it is. The few times I've had an image in the Top Rated Photos section, I've met at least a few new people who had seen it there and "discovered" me through that. Sometimes, on the other hand, when an image is popularly pleasing enough, I will get a few new people commenting just based on their like of the photo even if it hasn't gotten high ratings. Those contacts have also been some fine photographers who I've learned from over the years.</p>

<p>R Gentry-- Reasonable point. I think one thing that can come of it is that knowing that your photos are actually be looked at by someone other than yourself and your immediate family can be helpful. It extends your expression outward a bit and could make you think in "bigger" terms. Also, visibility, even if the "prize" itself of being at the top of the heap is worthless, can, as I said above, foster dialogue and learning, one of the purposes of belonging to a site like this.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>R, hi. certainly no guarantees, it's not even likely if there is not some apparent talent with the craft. But if top spot were a goal<br /> more visibility will not hurt. It has worked for some. PN is one small corner of a vast community of photographers.<br /> Communities tend to have there own benefits as well as drawbacks.</p>

<p>i won't delete this comment but it was posted simultaneously with Fred's.</p>

[revonda]

<p>Hi Fred and Josh, I forgot to say that if and when any of my images makes it to the "front" or "top spots" I do feel proud and it means something to me but just wondering if it really means anything to the outside world? I just hope everything is sincere on here or mostly anyway. I try to be sincere, I dont have any buddies here but just photogs I admire.</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>R, i would have to acquiesce to others regarding the significance a top photo has to the outside world. Just so many ways to quantify that. But if or when your photos make it to a top level attention in this community you certainly should be proud. This is a community you selected to be part of for your own reasons and to rise to the surface is a good moment. Sincerity has its own rewards (and challenges) but for most of us is very attractive.</p>

[revonda]

<p>Josh I agree 100%</p>

[robwilson]

<p>Thank you guys, some excellent points. The 'ciricle jerk' comment made me laugh as well!<br>

I must admit that I started this threat last night after several pints of beer, and was rather frustrated after seeing a whole heap of fawning over an image that I really didn't like. In the hindsight of a hangover perhaps I would have worded my original question a little differently!<br>

I often wonder what ratings William Eggleston would get if he put his amazing 'lightbulb in a red room' picture on here! (Probably a whole heap of 3/3s!) (I have to admit that I did once consider making up a fake ID and posting some of the world's greatest pictures on here and seeing what response they got!)<br>

I think John is right, I should concentrate on the more important numbers! However, as I am happily engaged to a fellow PNer (who may read this at some point) I don't think I should be getting any phone numbers!<br>

Cheers<br>

Rob</p>

<p> </p>

[phyrpowr]

<p>To add to Josh's generous observation: it's certainly possible that the "mate raters" actually do admire each others' photos, and are expressing honest opinions</p>

<p>There have been a number of recommendations for somehow qualifying raters, but I don't see how it can be done and keep an open forum</p>

[peter_ferling]

<p>I've tried the ratings, and not just here, and what I've learned after twenty-five years of shooting, is that I won't change. I also know there isn't a group of observers with clipboards in the bushes watching my every move. The rating system does work if you ask for a rater to rate a specific skill or issue. Just saying "Please comment. Thank you." Won't work. (Comment on what?).</p>

<p>If raters return a similar rating in kind, then that's human nature. An obligation. Such person will go out of their way to find something positive within a image to return the favor in kind.</p>

<p>I have enough feedback with folks whom purchase my prints and at my daily job to know better, (and I have been told on occasion to re shoot). However, I have a bigger desire to share my images with others, regardless of what they think, for the sake of sharing. So I cannot hoard my negatives into a dark closet, otherwise I might as well have never pressed the shutter to begin with.</p>

<p> </p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Josh you indeed make a great point. Still, there is more. Everyone likes a pat on the back, it's simple human nature. Despite the elaborate explanation that goes with it every week alsmost everyone seems to look upon the POW as the best photo of the week simply because people are competetive which is also a big factor . Fred is right, one of the best ways to gain visibility is via entering the rating system. That is sad because many people think that ratings tell them anything worthwhile and it doesn't and that the best photos are those with the highest ratings. I uploaded a photo yesterday and by mistake didn't check the critique only box. It attracted a few people I didn't know. So it helps in getting views.<br /> I got out of it after a short while and if that means less views than so be it. And yet, I've found your work early on and that of a lot of other good photographers who aren't very active here. That makes it all kind of relative doesn't it. A lot of the best work on this site will never appear prominently but it's there and without much effort can be found.<br /> It's just a game. A game I gladly do without because it's based on a misconception.</p>

[jill_bingham]

<p>Oops... Rob don't drink and post..LOL Drink lots of water.<br>

I really read a lot of thses forms but seldum comment . You all have some great points here. How's that for sitting on the fence?</p>