Where are all the TOP RATED Images

[paradox1]

<p>I have been an active participant in this site for a few years. Some of those years I was a paying member. Although I must admit that within the last 12 months I have tapered off this site considerably due to lack of equity, cheating and the nature of some down right nasty individuals. However this question has always intrigued me........just how on earth does the TOP- RATED system work? Now the first things I see are images that are good, without trying to isolate anyone, but they are certainly not great and the rates applied to them are obvious. Yet on the other hand I see images that are sensational and have the required anonymous TOP-RATES yet they do not even exist within the TOP-RATED category. Yes I understand that an image is required to have at least 5 anonymous high rates but then I see images with only 5 rates, which range from 3's to 5's. Sorry but the system, from what I can see is flawed. Someone please tell me how I have clearly missed something here. Please note this is not a whine about the 3-3 thing that always annoys people but a critical analysis of how the TOP-RATED system works

[paradox1]

<p>I am not asking as to why this image is not up to standard but as to the rating system in the way it is. The rates apllied should have put it in the the TOP RATED section. That is why I put this post on another section of this forum, but a moderator has moved it here. I did not want a critique I want an answer to the system that is in place.</p>

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

<p>what on earth are you ranting about? I checked the Top Rated photos for the last 3 days and there is your picture, bottom right corner of the first page!</p>

<p>here is a screen shot clearly showing it IS in the top rated section.</p><div></div>

[paradox1]

<p>Well heres a screen shot for you.......It it aint there. So my ranting is clearly warrented when it shows for one and not the other<br /> http://i456.photobucket.com/albums/qq286/kenboxsell/Screenshot.jpg<br /> Try finding it under nature.........and if it shows up then......clearly photo.net has a glitch</p>

[paradox1]

<p>LJ.......clearly you have changed the parameters of the page. You have chosen All Ratings (sum)<br>

My question is on the initial Nature page "Unchanged" using the filter of 3 days and Recent Ratings (average). It does not appear on my screen, does it on yours</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Ken, LJ's reply was basically correct. If you want your photo to appear on page 1 of the TRP regardless of parameters selected you should study the photos that routinely appear there. You should be able to pick up some clues about how it's done. The most prominently displayed photos on the TRP usually garner many ratings, usually of 6 or 7, and many comments. Emulate what they do and your own photos will eventually receive greater prominence.</p>

<p>For information about how and why the ratings system and TRP works as it does just search the archives of this forum (Casual Photo Conversations) and the <a href="../site-help-forum/">Site Help Forum</a> for any of the hundreds of previous discussions about this and related issues.</p>

[paradox1]

<p>Thanks Lex<br>

<br /> LJ's "ranting" remark is all too indicative of many on this site. Lets not guild the lily anymore, when you state that, "<em>LJ's reply was basically correct</em> ". That statement has no other interpretation other than being partially correct, only when you manipulate the page using filters and therefore must be totally inaccurate. The fact is that there are all too many self inflated egos that do existing on this site and so many seem to be quite oblivious to all fact, when it suits them. Or maybe they feel that the rating system should be a foundation based on creativity and triggered by random occurrences. (I bet the guy that invents that algorithm could make a few bucks writing data encryption) For goodness sake the rating system has nothing to do with art as it must be purely mathematically based, in order for it to function within the website.<br>

<br /> However that does not address the issue as to why. Currently there are images of very good quality but that is irrelevant in many aspects of this site's measurement of rating. The criterion for images to be added to the list within the RECENT RATINGS (average) are and can only be there due to both high ratings of an anonymous nature and possibly to a lesser degree open ratings. There are simply no other parameters that can be measured to obtain such a condition (unless you are basing purely upon views, which would leave the doors wide open for cheating the system). I have been on this site for several years and am quite aware of what quality is but once again that is irrelevant in the measurement of data. There is always a select amount of images on the Top Rated (average) obtaining lesser anonymous ratings than many other images that are continually floating around in what seems to be photo.net limbo. What I am trying to point out to so many, often naive individuals, is that the system seems flawed and therefore inequitable when it is clear that equal or higher rated images are denied the chance of being viewed in a descending order, through the Top Rated page (without manipulating filters).<br>

<br /> Cheers and thanks for your obvious objectivity and focused response to what you thought you actually read in the question. It would seem that all too many individuals have lost this ability to read and answer with a dignified, educated response that is pertinent to the question.</p>

[cooltpmd]

<p>Ken;</p>

<p>You have 2 issues going on in this post ... fairness of the rating system, which is well discussed in these forums.</p>

<p>Your issue with seeing your photo is a computer issue. Do not use the "<strong>Recent ratings</strong>" filter, you will get odd results. If you use "<strong>All ratings</strong>" (sum or average), with the appropriate time frame, you will get better results.</p>

<p>Hope it helps!</p>

[davidaten]

<p>Ego is man's downfall.<br>

Why not just produce good imagery because you love it, not because of a "rating" system...</p>

[mikeoday]

<p >I’m not sure Ken but I think the problem you are writing about relates to the fact that not all anonymous ratings are used by the default ‘rate recent’ search function. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >As I understand it (and I’m happy to be corrected by those who know better), only those anonymous rating generated from the ‘Rate Photos’ page with filter set to ‘All’ are counted. That is, if a person is rating a particular category only (by setting the filter to only Landscape say), then the anonymous rating they give will show up on the statistics for the image as an anonymous rating but will not be counted towards the minimum 5 ratings required under the ‘Recent Ratings’ search options. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I can only speculate that this was implemented to make it more difficult to cheat the system – ie. if a person is intent on finding a particular image to give a very low/high anonymous rating to then it is harder to search through all the images in the rating queue to find it than to hunt trough just a single category.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In any case, Josh has been indicating that a major revamp to the rating system is on the way that should (hopefully) see a great many more images receive the necessary minimum number of ratings necessary to appear in the top photos pages. This should help mitigate this particular problem.</p>

[mikeoday]

<p >If I might suggest an answer to your question David “Why not just produce good imagery because you love it, not because of a "rating" system...”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I imagine that many of us post our images on PN because we would like to share them with our fellows and hopefully receive some form of feedback. It follows that the more people who view our images the better this goal will be achieved. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >As I see it, the rating system performs two important functions in support of this aim. Firstly, receiving a rating is in itself a valid form of feedback (albeit little more than a measure of popularity). And secondly, visibility of any particular image in the PN galleries is largely based on the number and values of ratings received. And of course, if we want our images seen then they must have high visibility on the site.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Or to answer your question another way…</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If one is not interested in feedback or having ones image seen by a large group of people then why post them to PN? And if one does want these things and ratings are fundamental to providing them, then what’s wrong with ratings?</p>

[wood]

<p>The TRP is a popularity contest, nothing more. To treat it as a serious judgment of photographic quality is silly.</p>

[paradox1]

<p>Thank you so much Mike,<br /> I was really contemplating whether I had made myself clear in the question. I was beginning to think that I should have simplified it a little. However your suggestion as to the system workings makes absolute sense. It is certainly a factor that I had never considered. Thanks for taking the time to carefully read and answer the question. It would seem that many people had no idea how the system worked but were quite adept at making their own approximate interpretations and venting their opinion.<br /> <br /> @ David<br /> Being ignorant to the world and not questioning why things happen would ensure that mankind still swing in the trees. I take photos because I love doing it and as for using the web to allow others to view the world through my eyes could hardly be regarded as an ego trip. I asked this original question to better understand how things work but as usual there are a select few with very little ability to comprehend what is actually being asked. This question has no relevance to art or why it is created, rather how a website works.<br /> <br /> @ Robert<br /> I agree with you more than you probably know. However ratings are a part of photo.net and one that I do actually, to a degree, enjoy. However my asking the question of how the Top Rated system works is hardly a true depiction of character and how I judge my own art. Simply the ratings are there and I use them, whether I take it seriously is of little relevance to the question.</p>

[wood]

<p>If your question is why do some photos with the requisite number of ratings not appear in the TRP, then one possible answer is that only anonymous ratings from the "Rate Recent Photos" option are used in the calculation. Any anonymous ratings received under the "Rate Category" option are not used. This applies to the TRP when the "Recent Ratings (average)" is selected in the "Sort By:" pick list, which is the default. As stated above, if you change this to "All ratings (average)" then all ratings whether anonymous or direct are used. But a minimum number of ratings is still required.</p>

<p>Another factor is the date the photo was loaded in PN. If the filter is set at 3 days (default) but the photo was loaded several days before, it won't appear. The 3 days applies to the date the photo was loaded, not the date the photo was submitted to the critique forum.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Ken, I'm still not sure whether I'm interpreting the gist of your question accurately. Would it be fair to summarize it as: "How do I get my photos more prominence on the TRP?"</p>

[tholte]

<p>"How do I get my photos more prominence on the TRP?" Ahhh, maybe take some interesting photos?</p>

[paradox1]

<p>@Robert<br /> Cool, thanks mate. That does add a little light to the question and certainly supports Mike's theory as well. Cheers<br /> @ Lex<br /> No not quite Lex. The point was..... I did not understand how the rating system worked and it looked rather confusing with lower rated images positioning themselves on the TRP whilst omitting higher anonymous rated images (using the Recent Ratings average filter). However thanks to Mike O'Day's reply it seems to make a little more sense now. Although it has certainly become a long winded yet laughable exercise with comments from people like little Timmy<br /> @Tim<br /> Haaahaha.......maybe you can give me a fews tips. I love those dark and dirty type images but that little red umbrella......priceless...... and thanks for at least attempting to read the question. Nice try Timmy...you had me on the floor in stitches.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Well, exactly how the wheels and gears grind inside photo.net's automated system for calculating feedback to rank photos on the TRP, nobody knows for certain other than the programmer and site administrator. As a mere moderator (aka, janitor, de-spammer and spat referee), I can only guess based on observations. I can only say that when I've submitted my own photos for ratings, and rated the photos of other photographers, to test the system, things appeared to work as they should... technically.</p>

<p>Now, how the system actually has been working for the past couple of years in real life, that's ... <em>interesting</em> , to put it as diplomatically as possible. As Mike noted, changes are coming. I'm not privy to what those changes will be. But I'm confident some parity will be restored to help make the ratings system and TRP more enjoyable for those who wish to pursue that perfectly valid aspect of photo.net without resorting to shenanigans and cliques to manipulate the system.</p>

[paradox1]

<p>Thanks heaps Lex<br>

I am guessing it would certainly be viewed as a very welcome fix indeed by many a member here. My hat goes off to the programmer that can pull that off. "... <em>interesting</em> " lol.......well put.<br>

Cheers</p>