rating

[hokku]

<p>I am a new member. I'd like my photos to be rated and my target is to get to "top photographers" category. What should I do?</p>

[avery1]

<p>1. Take stellar shots<br>

2. Upload your photos<br>

3. Rate other people's photos<br>

4. Don't get too caught up in the ratings<br>

5. Send me a check for $100 and I'll give you all 7/7's :)</p>

[timzeipekis]

<p>Create a large network of friends and shower them with praise...........</p>

[sumon_mukherjee]

<p>Don’t send Avery $ 100. I’ll do it in $ 50. </p>

<p > Try to follow the other four suggestions of Avery .</p>

<p > </p>

 

[hokku]

<p>Thanks for answers. So easy? $50 for 7/7 means $7 for 1/1 mark! seems to be pretty expansive)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I'd like my photos to be rated and my target is to get to "top photographers" category. What should I do?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A commendably mercenary ambition, if only because you are honest enough to state that your priority is to be a top rated photographer, not a "better" photographer. In reward for your frankness I will point you toward the secret bread crumb trail that leads to the pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow.</p>

<p>Study these Google links. Carefully note the patterns, including names, rating styles and comments of praise (but never actual critiques):<br>

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%227%2F7+anon%22+site%3Aphoto.net&aq=f&oq=&aqi=">Bread crumb 1</a><br>

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%227%2F7a%22+site%3Aphoto.net&aq=f&oq=&aqi=">Bread crumb 2</a><br>

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%226%2F6+anon%22+site%3Aphoto.net&aq=f&oq=&aqi=">Bread crumb 3</a><br>

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%226%2F6a%22+site%3Aphoto.net&aq=f&oq=&aqi=">Bread crumb 4</a></p>

<p>As you might expect in any fairy tale adventure the path is fraught with peril. Be sure to avoid this pitfall:<br>

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=anonymous+coward+rate+site%3Aphoto.net&aq=f&oq=&aqi=">Pitfall</a> .</p>

<p>Remember... in the fairy tale quest to become a top rated photographer, those who seek the grail must understand these truisms:</p>

<ul>

<li>Anonymous raters who give ratings lower than 5/5 are "anonymous cowards"</li>

<li>Anonymous raters who give ratings higher than 5/5 are "heroes"</li>

<li>Acceptable critiques include "Great capture!", "Well seen!" and liberal use of the phrase "My friend"</li>

</ul>

<p>A final tip: the effective social networker understands the value of community organization via e-mail, instant messaging, Twitter and online friending via Facebook. Those who understand and master the dynamics of social networking will be rewarded with a place on the TRP.</p>

<p>Fare thee well, my friend, and may great captures follow.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Lex--</strong></p>

<p>It's clear what's going on here and who's participating. Since the site is looking into a rating system where some of this can be curbed, it's obvious that the site isn't happy with the behavior. Why not ban the perpetrators from using the rating system or being in the TRP for a period of time until the behavior stops? It seems to me you've made a fairly straightforward case for disciplinary action to be taken.</p>

<p>I'm not against the social networking aspect of PN. I think it's great. But gaming the system and out and out cheating is another matter. You've exposed cheating. It seems there ought to be a next step.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Admin is aware of the issue. It's being addressed both privately and through modifications to the system to restore parity. The participants in the clique have been asked to discontinue advertising their anonymous ratings and it appears to have tapered off since this past Spring.</p>

<p>I'll confess that when I first noticed the extent of gaming of the system by a clique of a dozen or so folks my initial reaction was like yours. However, after considering other factors I realize that photo.net's diverse membership find their own ways to enjoy the site. Rather than punish them for exploiting a vulnerability in the system, perhaps we should thank them. Not only have they provided incentive to improve the ratings system, they have also provided quite a bit of amusement. In the long run it became difficult for me to remain angry at adults who regard photo.net as a gigantic refrigerator and their photography as decorations to be stuck on with a magnet for fawning approval by mom and dad.</p>

<p>Besides, this gaming only affects the ratings system, not the value of critiques. Considering how prominently photo.net is picked up on Google, there are still many viable ways for serious photographers to be featured apart from the TRP.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lex--</p>

<p>Thanks. I appreciate the response.</p>

[mikeoday]

<p>

<p>I’m at work and find myself with a rare 10mins between endless emails, reports and meetings to scan through the forums of my favourite site. On this occasion I thought I might brave the frigid waters of ratings discussions and present one alternate interpretation of the motivation behind the “Anon 7/7” phenomenon.</p>

<p>Whilst you posts on ratings seem very balanced Lex, it is possible for someone to draw an inference that “anon 7/7” is evidence of “mate rating” and I’m not at all sure that is always the case. Indeed, at looking at some of the images your searches returned, I consider many of them to be wonderful images that I would have no hesitation in giving attributed ratings of 6/6 or 7/7.</p>

<p>Consider the following question:</p>

<p>Why is writing “anon 7/7” in a comment more likely to be a “mate rating” than giving an attributed 7/7?</p>

<p>And then consider this:</p>

<p>What is a guy to do if one’s preference is to give attributed ratings but is presented with a clear 7/7 image on a day that they have already ‘run out’ of attributed 7s? The choices are to skip over the image, under value it with a 6/6, give an anonymous 7/7 without a comment or to give a 7/7 and then the attribution in a comment. That is, for some at least, the “anon 7/7” may have nothing to do with “mate rating”, rather, it could simply be a work around for the arbitrary limit on the number of attributed 7/7s one is allowed under the ratings rules.</p>

<p>No doubt there are probably as many different motivations behind the practice as there are people doing it. An inference that the only (or even most likely) motivation is to seek high ratings from others is in my view an over-simplification of a complex behaviour and, in at least some cases, is perhaps a little unfair.</p>

</p>