Specific ratings question

[jgalyon]

<p>Lex, It sounds to me like you're jumbling two separate issues into one. Like you, I have no problem with members participating in the rating and critique of photographs on PN...regardless of whether they have a PN portfolio or not. But you seem to have melded that issue together with other possible criteria for rating/critiquing photos on the site...which just seems to blur the issue for me. <br>

What are your feelings about the concept of anonymous submissions, along with the present, anonymous ratings? I can't seem to find any negatives to the concept. </p>

<p> </p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Leo , those birds are geese not ducks, goose may not rhyme with your favourite word but it does rhyme with caboose or obtuse or even moose. As for your evaluational of the critique forum I am in general agreement.</p>

<p>Regardless of the name used for the critique forum it is clearly used primarily as a place for people to troll for compliments. The number of compliments and the flow of the gushing praise received, bares no relationship to the actual image and is determined entirely by the social and game playing skills of the person uploading the photo. Despite the fact that 3/3 should be the average rating in the que , anything lower than 6/6 is considered a blow below the belt. Despite there being nothing in the rules stating that a rating be attached to a comment, social etiquette dictates that if anyone rates below 6/6 and particularly, heaven forbid, below 4/4 they had better be prepared to back up that sort of socially unacceptable behavior with some seriously detailed explanation. What nonsense ! if you play a game , you play by the rules and nowhere is it stated that a person has to justify a rating, so how can anyone complain when they get a rating without a comment ? When you get a 3/3 at the vary least you now know that some anonymous person logged onto PN thinks your photo sucks. if you do not want to run the risk of having that knowledge, then don't ask in the first place.</p>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm starting to understand why you stopped requesting critiques.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Huh? I have done no such thing. In fact, looking at my requests, I have been submitting for critique much more often in the past couple of years.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> The number of compliments and the flow of the gushing praise received, bares no relationship to the actual image and is determined entirely by the social and game playing skills of the person uploading the photo.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Patently and demonstrably false. I just got an excellent critique from one 'Adrienne Garden'. (Hope I spelled her correctly.) It was critical of my image, no gushing praise, and the criticism was entirely accurate and given in an appropriate tone and spirit. This is not the only such instance. Of course there is 'mate rating'. If you see "Bella! Bella! Maxa!" you know what's going on.</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Les; I did not state that the chances of receiving a useful critique were zero. You are correct in admonishing me as I should not have used the word "entirely" in my comment, <em>predominantly</em> would have been a better choice of words.<br>

In the overall scheme of things at PN I regularly see images which are clearly poorly executed being given high ratings and praise. On the occassions I have been curious enough to peruse the portfolio further I have found whole portfolios of absolute crap all of which has been lavished with praise. A moments inquiry reveals that the person offers up loads of meaningless drivel on a daily basis to a bunch of like minded syncophants and that furthermore this is the only reason their photo has two dozen 6/6 ratings.</p>

<p>The example you gave is in my experience the exception to the rule. Those few honest and insightful opinions I do receive remain the reason I bother to upload anything to this site. Some people do offer useful and insightful opinions and assistance, on occassion even I endevour to be one of them. They are however in the minority and they are obliged to share the same playground with a host of crybabies and please tell me my cat picture is brillaint types. I could link to several examples of photos that most everyone would agree are positively God awful eyesores repleat with a bunch of high ratings and high praise, but even I am not that insensitive. </p>

 

[stembaughphotography]

<p>Actually yes, I have. Fred Goldsmith is one that leaves helpful comments or sends a message via email. I just posted one that got several 3 3 's. One lady left a comment and said that the reason she gave a low rating was that there was nothing there! The subj of the photo was very obvious- no it was not a glamour shot or photo shopped to death. Basically just a snapshot of my son in a suit. And yes it was snapshot, and I like it. My son said, "Just don't take half hour to set up the shot" So I did not set up the shot at all or he would have been changed and gone for the evening and will probably never see him in that suit again. Again I like it , so does he and several others even excluding family. Guess the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder - even in photographs.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>David, I read the woman's comments and your response. I don't get it, David. You state in your bio that it could be considered "abusive" to offer a low rating without an explanation. The lady offered both...but simply because she didn't assign the same value to the photograph as you...you dismiss everything she said and wrote (among other things):</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...this is not a 3 this is a 4 average photo!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This, followed by your own reasons why your assessment that the photograph is "good"...and everyone else is in essence, clueless. You don't have to agree with what people say about your photographs...but a thank you for their effort would be nice...don't ya think?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Again I like it , so does he and several others even excluding family</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's great David! The problem is...you asked others if they like it, and so far ...they don't! If you're just seeking approval for all your photographs, regardless of their quality...family will usually provide just that. When dealing with strangers who aren't biased in your favor...you can't expect automatic praise...and may just get a few, "your photograph sucks!".<br>

<br />I've never seen a more perfect example of why so many people are hesitant to offer an honest critique or comment....much less offer an honest 3/3.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>I've been reading this both with interest and amusement because if nothing else there's a small lesson in psychology here ;-)</p>

<p>When I first came here I've handed out 3/3 ratings, even lower ones for that matter and while in some cases I did leave a comment in others I didn't. The very first rating/comment I left behind on a photo on this very site actually led to a few nasty e-mails that you wouldn't believe which proved to be a lot of fun because it gave me a great insight in the intelligence, or rather lack of it of said photographer.</p>

<p>I've received a few 3/3 ratings myself occasionally. Actually even on one or two photos that I succesfully exhibited in a art gallery. Does that mean that the one who provided them was wrong? No of course not, it just means they didn't like the photo, it's as simple as that. Why would anyone be offended by that?</p>

<p>You can exhibit your work in even the best of galleries but while it surely will suggest to most people there must be something to it because of that fact alone you can be pretty sure as well that not everybody is going to like your work. Seems pretty normal to me.</p>

<p>I've found in my time here that in most cases where people complain and drivel about low ratings it's mostly a case of ego exceeding talent while, instead of using a bit of healthy self reflection, it's projected on those that provided them.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>David</strong>, thanks for the nod. I've always appreciated our sincere interactions.</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Even if we except David's beyond ridiculous notion that his photo can only be judged by standards he alone sets, the photo does not even meet his own standard for sharpness, exposure and background etc. --- well ok his son does not have a pole coming out of his head but he is being devoured by a flowering bush. David berated Nicholas in response to Nicholas taking the time to leave a comment expaining his low rating and not satisfied there David emailed Nicholas to explain to him why his photo is worthy of a rating above 3/3. This type of asinine childish temper tantrum is precisely why few people bother to leave a comment when they rate low. <br /> I don't rate photos but I may make an exception and give this one a 3/3. Bad photography should get bad ratings after all this is a photography site. I am not sure of what benefits are supposed to be had from giving bad photography good ratings. Lowering the bar only servers to retard progress.<br /> David's reaction to critique is a good example of the confusion that ensues when you title a " look at my snapshot and stroke my ego forum ' with a name as misleading as<em> Critique</em> forum.<br /> Should there be a place at PN for David to upload out of focus, poorly posed, overexposed photos of his son looking pissed off and bored where he does not have to run the risk of any of these flaws being brought to his attention ? probably, there would seem to be a need for such a thing ... I really don't know. Should the photo be in a forum supposedly intended for peer to peer critique ? probably not, or if so only if the person is willing to except a bunch of 3/3's and is adult enough to deal with it, something which is clearly not the case here.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>David, why is a low rating with no commentary abusive while other ratings with no commentary are not?</p>

[jgalyon]

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6140616">http://www.photo.net/photo/6140616</a></p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Holy duck!</p>

<p>Don't let Leo see that one cuz ya know how he feels about ducks.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>lol</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Talking about irony poking its head out at just the right moment....check out the link if you care to.</p>

<p><a href="../photo/10939597">http://www.photo.net/photo/10939597</a></p>

<p>I had offered a complimentary critique of the photograph itself...but didn't feel the title ("Interrogation") was a good fit...and explained why. Just minutes ago I found that the photographer had deleted the first version and replaced it, changing the title. This meant that he lost comments and ratings...which he was obviously willing to do.</p>

<p>I certainly didn't expect that the photographer would make such a change as a result of my comment, and I felt a a bit badly that he lost the first set of comments and ratings. Although I realize that this might seem like a small, relatively insignificant thing to some... it blew me away a bit that someone could so easily and gracefully accept the fact that perhaps, they didn't get it right the first time and ego didn't stand in the way of their making a change. Now that's a person and a photographer that I can...and do respect.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Its not irony. Its coincidence.</p>

<p>Its also too late to edit the post in response to my critique. ;)</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Maybe an ironic coincidence? :)</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>No.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Neither.</p>

<p>Piling on.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>thanks so much for your insightful comment, Fred! you da man!</p>

[shoulder]

<p>Sarah I agree with you , what is the real purpose of rating, is it meant for the photographer to learn how to improve his picture taking technique - an educational experience launched at him or her by peers or is it some sort of competition without rules?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Joe, the ratings system is not quite a competition but more a poll or survey of popular opinion. Occasionally popular opinion also happens to coincide with critical merit. The fact that it does so fairly often is a rough indication of the fairly high standards of most photo.net members.</p>

<p>But the only thing you can "learn" from the ratings system is how to take photos that appeal to popular opinion. And if you study the system carefully, you may also learn how to become a popular photographer within the limited context of a single website. The TRP is driven in fairly equal measures by the merits of the photos themselves (again, within the context of popular taste) and by the ability of the photographers to cultivate a social networking system to make themselves popular as well. This dynamic is no different from many sites, including Flickr. Many photographers enjoy being associated in some way with proximity to popular photographers.</p>

[KyleE]

<p>So after this lengthy discussion and all of the great insight into the critique forum and the ratings system my question would be: where do people genuinely interested in detailed critiques to help better their photography go in order to get such critiques?</p>

<p>I think that there is a lot of truth in this thread and it tells me that critique forum is a misnomer that the critique forum isn't really for critiques. That leads me to think that maybe we need an actual critique forum set up in a way to facilitate people helping each other learn. Now I think that even if you are not an expert anyone's genuine opinion on why a photo works or doesn't work for them is valid and interesting to hear. I mean real critical thinking. You look at a piece of art and you have an initial reaction, why? That sort of feedback is what I initially expected when I first started coming to this site and saw the critique forum. And it is what would be nice if we could find it here. </p>

<p>Granted I am not really sure how to make such a thing work but one can dream right?</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Photo.net already has a critique system and has had for years. The problem isn't with the structure. It's there. The problem is that there are more people wanting feedback than there are people willing to give feedback.</p>

<p>Look at your own feedback data. Have you given more critiques (written comments) than you have requested? (Be sure to subtract your own comments on your own photos from the total.) Have you rated more photos than you have requested? It's a very common problem on photo.net. Many of the folks who complain about the ratings and critiques system are taking more than they're giving.</p>

<p>There's no magic at work here. There's no pool of professional, paid experts on staff, each with expertise in a given genre of photography, waiting to rate and critique your photos in a manner that meets with your specific approval. Photo.net depends on the peer review system. It depends on each member pulling his or her own weight and pitching in to offer ratings and critiques along with asking for feedback.</p>

<p>Photo.net provides the tools and the basic structure for a feedback system. It's up to the members to use those tools and that structure. If you examine the system you'll find that some members have worked cooperatively to cultivate groups of peers to give feedback on each others photos. That's how it works.</p>

<p>It also helps to write specific critique requests. For example, I only occasionally look at the critique request forum (as I've mentioned before, I typically use the Rate Photos queue). I tend to skip over any critique request that reads something like "All rates and comments welcome." That tells me nothing. I look for specific critique requests from members who have explained what sort of feedback they're looking for.</p>

<p>And it helps to be honest with those critique requests. If a member honestly welcomes "all rates and comments" then that member should not complain when he or she receives ratings without comments or critiques, or critiques that don't heap lavish praise on everything that falls out of the photographer's camera.</p>

<p>There are sites where photographers can receive frank criticism. Those sites usually permit and even encourage total anonymity or pseudonyms. While not all the feedback is necessarily credible, well informed or constructive, some of it is. And because participants don't fear retaliation, the exchanges can be blunt, even harsh... and often very accurate. So it's up to the photographer requesting feedback to have a tough enough hide to withstand the intense scrutiny. Photo.net's history shows that most folks who gravitate here don't enjoy that type of feedback and in some cases are far too precious to withstand even constructive, insightful feedback that doesn't amount to frosting on a cupcake.</p>

[papasan]

<p>With all due respect Lex, i think that Kyle's point is quite valid, it is not as simple as give critique and get some back. I have provided over 3,150 critiques on this site most of them being more than just "nice shot". Maybe if i took out the comments i made on my own photos this would come down to 2,500, but i only requested 209 critiques from the forum. That's more than a 10 to 1 ratio. Yet i get very few comments on my photos critique requests, and many of the comments are from peers with whom i have developed a relationship over the years and we follow each other's work. <br>

I think one of the main problem is the random system of the critique forum, whereby a photo may appear 1 time or 200 times, but there is no way to predict it. I realize that the old system had some problems too, but a few years ago, it was not unusual for one of my photos to get over 1,000 views some of my photos actually got near 50,000 views, but nowadays i'm quite happy if i get 20 views on one photo. <br>

I grant you that many people do not like to leave comments for one reason or another and that is quite alright. But if the photo gets only 10 or 20 views the chance of having someone who is willing to leave a comment, actually view your photo is all the more slimmer... <br>

Many of us have started to develop networks so we can discuss each other's photos and provide each other constructive feedback. This may be the way to go, but it does require a lot of work to set it up. I had suggested a while back that PN could create a chat room style of discussion forum for people who want to participate in group feedback. <br>

I do think that the random viewing system of the critique forum is not working, sometimes i go through it and find several pictures i want to comment on but once you opened one photo and comment on it, it is usually impossible to return to the initial page to comment on the other ones. And you may never see the ones you saw again. i would like to be able to access and see all the photos that are presented in each category for instance rather than just a random selection. The random selection may be a good entry point but if i want to see all the photos submitted over say the last 3 days, there should be a way to be able to do that. I'm usually keen on providing comments and constructive criticism to others (and quite open to receive them as well) but i find it difficult to do so under the present system. <br>

Just my two cents</p>

[KyleE]

<p>First off I am guilty of not giving enough critiques. I do as much as I can but what I lack in quantity I try very hard to make up for in quality. I am not a pro photographer but I have taken a lot of art classes and like to think I can provide my opinion on color, composition, and the overall feeling of a photograph. When I first joined this site I did use the ratings but I have since learned they have no real value and stopped rating photos. If I see a photo I like I comment on it. And I try to leave a detailed critique, I talk about things I like and about things I think could be improved on. Not that I am perfect but I do make an effort.</p>

<p>I think the problem Lex, that I was trying to get at is that the critique forum and the ratings system do clash for the very reason that when you are going through the ratings cue you do not see the photographers comments or request on their photo. I do think that with some restructuring there could be a critique forum that could work.</p>

<p>It is perfectly fine for people to troll for good ratings or just seek that good feeling of approval. But there should be two separate forums, there should be a real critique forum one that does not have any ratings at all and only is based on comments and then there should be a ratings forum where people can comment on photos or rate it. The critique forum should not be based on membership but level of participation, the more comments you leave the more you can request.</p>

<p>In the end there is no perfect answer but it certainly seems like the critiques and the ratings could be separate and it would make quite a few people who take the critiques seriously happy.</p>

<p>Maybe an anonymous system would make it easier for people to be brave with blunt critiques.</p>