Anonymous ratings of photos?

[jfr1]

<p>I don`t like the fact that the ratings are anonymous. Can something be done about that?</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Something COULD be done, but it won't be.<br>

Here's my standard reply to this question:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anonymous rating is in place because people could not act like adults.<br />Harassment, revenge ratings, and nasty email were all common when all<br />ratings were public. You personally may be able to take criticism well, but many, <br />otherwise normal, people have proven that they cannot. If they think<br />their image is better than it was rated, they react horribly.<br /><br />If you do not wish to mess with ratings, you can submit your image for<br />"critique only"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While I am running the show, there is <strong>very</strong> little chance that all ratings will ever be public.</p>

[asafrye]

<p>I think anonymous should stay. I'm suspicious about the 3/3 rater(s) though. I've seen many many examples of good work (and I'm not referring to my own) that get rated with 3/3. I appreciate that everyone is entitled to express their opinion, and tastes vary. . .but gosh, sometimes it just doesn't make any logical sense to me. It happens to so many photos, and so quickly (often the first rating a photo would receive) that it seems someone is programmed to do it. Although, it's hard to imagine someone with that much time on their hands (and misery in their soul) to just sit in the forum and rate everything that goes by with a 3/3. So we need the anonymous system because this person (or persons) should be protected from abusive responses.</p>

[starvy]

<p>You are demanding! I always find that in sites like this it is best to request than demand. While others might not agree, I would really like to see ratings of 1 being taken into account as well.</p>

[color]

<p>I, moi', would like to see <em>not only </em>ratings continue to be anonymous, but the photos themselves. That is while photos are in the ratings and critiques ques that they would be unnamed there except for category and unattributed to any specific photographer. </p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Photo.net's history shows that attributed ratings - as opposed to anonymous ratings - are not necessarily more honest. Attributed ratings may tend to be higher, but there are strong indications that this is due to reciprocity between members who have an agreement, if only an unspoken or unwritten agreement, to give each other only above-average ratings.</p>

<p>There is also a tendency among members who believe anonymous ratings are unfair to also believe that anonymous ratings are dishonest, arbitrary or punitive. Some members who oppose anonymous ratings even characterize these anonymous ratings as "cowardly". In fact, many anonymous ratings come from members like me. The majority of my ratings (over 4,000 as of this writing - a paltry sum compared with some members with ratings in five figures) have been given via the anonymous "<a href="../gallery/photocritique?rating_type=photocritique&topic_id=1481&recent=4">Rate Photos</a>" queue.</p>

<p>Why would any photo.net member use the anonymous "Rate Photos" queue? I can speak only for myself:</p>

<ol>

<li>It's more honest, in my opinion. I don't want my name to influence the ratings/critiques I receive on my own photos when I submit my photos for feedback. I don't want anyone to feel that they are obliged to rate my photos in any particular way merely because I rated their photos.</li>

<li>It's more honest because less cherry picking is involved. The "Rate Photos" queue presents photos sequentially. I simply view and rate everything I see, usually when I view them using a genre filter.</li>

<li>It's much more efficient. I can rate far more photos in a single session than I can by using the other options for critiquing/rating photos. Keep in mind that many members enjoy the somewhat competitive nature of the Top Rated Photos display gallery. Some of those members have specifically stated they want more ratings. Not higher ratings. Not attributed or non-anonymous ratings. Just more ratings. The anonymous "Rate Photos" queue serves that function very well.</li>

</ol>

<p>I rate photos only within the context of the genre/category to which the photo was submitted for ratings. I don't see the other comments written by the photographer to accompany a critique request. I rate as I see fit for the genre/category to which the photo was submitted for ratings. If an artistic nude is submitted for ratings to the "Street" or "Journalism" genres, I will probably give it a very low rating because it is inappropriate for those genres, unless there are specific extenuating circumstances.</p>

<p>Likewise, if I see an HDR (high dynamic range, heavily digitally altered or tone mapped) photo submitted to the "Journalism" queue, I will rate it low because conventional ethics for photojournalism prohibit such heavy editing or alterations.</p>

<p>It is possible that other photo.net members who use the anonymous "Rate Photos" queue have other personal guidelines they use. But these are mine. So using my personal guidelines, if I see an aesthetically appealing photo that is also completely inappropriate for the genre to which it was submitted for ratings, I will assign a low rating. I will also occasionally explain the low rating in the critique/comment section, but not always. In my experience, some members are completely unreceptive to honest, constructive criticism and will take offense at any comments other than fawning praise. I don't bother to offer comments or critiques to those members who have a history of rejecting constructive criticism. But I will rate their photos as they are presented sequentially in the "Rate Photos" queue.</p>

<p>Again, I speak only for myself. And I am far from being the most prolific rater using the anonymous "Rate Photos" queue. But I would not be surprised to find others with similar standards for using the anonymous ratings queue. I seriously doubt that most anonymous low ratings are vindictive, punitive, arbitrary or unfair. They simply reflect the personal aesthetic standards of the persons viewing those photos.</p>

<p>Regarding Chuck's suggestion that photo submissions also be anonymous, I would tend to agree. However there are potential flaws in that proposal.</p>

<p>For one thing, some members use copyright notices, logos and other identifiers embedded within the photo. These serve to identify the photographer even when other identifiers are omitted.</p>

<p>For another thing, some photographers have very distinctive styles. Even if their name, logo, etc., appears nowhere on the photo, I can usually spot a Meir Samel or John Crosley candid/street photo a mile away. Some folks have such distinctive styles that complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed.</p>

<p>So even if we adopted a double-blind system, members giving ratings might still be influenced by personal perceptions. However, all things considered, it might be the lesser of two evils. I'd be willing to support a double-blind ratings system, if it were feasible.</p>

[gordonjb]

I like the idea of a double blind system in theory. In practice I doubt it would accomplish much for the reasons Lex points out. If I rated photos and wanted to give high ratings or low ones to the group of photographer whose work I regularly follow I would have no trouble attaching their names to their images. I can also tell the work of many of the photographers here whose work I do not follow . Any regular group of members who are presently rating one another works based on name rather than the image itself would easily be able to carry one doing so after the names were removed.

 

A better solution would be to stop taking all of this number stuff so darn seriously. The system as stands, works adequately provided that you are asking for ratings in order to get a ball park notion of the numerical value which a group of strangers would attach to your photo. Some number of people are going to give 3/3 ratings without attempting to understand your masterpiece. Others will give out 3/3s based on preconceived prejudices, like not liking dog photos or nudes or nude dogs or .... Yet others may well hammer out a steady stream of 3/3s for no better reason than that they are bored and small minded. If you put a crowd of strangers together anywhere in the world you will find these sorts and more in the group. If you ask for feedback from a random group of stranger you have to accept that the responses will most likely be somewhat random. If you want the deck stacked so that you have a cherry picked group rating your photos ask your mom to rate your photos then go put them on the fridge knowing that at least one person appreciates your genius.

[color]

<p><strong>There</strong> is no such thing as a perfect system of doing anything anywhere in life, so even though a double blind system for rating images would not be perfect I would like to see it happen, at least for a few months. The fact that several Photo.net members have distinctive styles doesn't mean that those familiar with their style would identify their work from looking at their images in the critique or rate ques. Even if they did, so what? That would probably be only a very small minority of postings and a small breach of double blindedness in ratings.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>I am not against a double-blind system. But I also do not think it will make a huge difference as far as the cheaters go.</p>

[color]

<p>Cheaters?</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Cheaters.</p>

<p>You give my images a 7 and I'll give your images a 7, so we both "win".</p>

<p>Or you're my main competitor so I'll give all of your images a 3 so I can beat you (unless you also give all my images a 3...).</p>

<p>Yes, it happens.</p>

[color]

<p>The percentage of P'netters who are cheaters must be small. And my support for the idea of double blind rating is not to avoid malcontents, as if that were possible, but to yield more spontaneous, less prejudiced ratings.</p>

[ndj]

<p>I'll weigh in here with my 2 bits worth. I don't think anonymous ratings do much for anyone. Why?</p>

<ol>

<li>It makes it much easier for those wanting to take advantage of the system (cheaters)</li>

<li>It makes it much easier for people with grudges to retaliate against other users (ie film vs digital, B&W vs color, etc)</li>

<li>The anonymous ratings are heavily tied into much of the other functionality of Pnet ( Random Photo Generator, Top Photos, etc)</li>

<li>It tells you nothing about your photo (Somebody thinks it sucks - no idea why so they must be idiots, high ratings might just be after a buddy rating so that's meaningless) </li>

</ol>

<p>I no longer participate in the ratings system, and do not request ratings either. If one chooses to opt out of the anonymous ratings system then you're also out of the Random Photo Generator, and much of the other front page Pnet functionality. That's a problem.<br /> I'd also suggest that stating that no change will be considered is probably not a great approach either. Possibly a thread like suggestions to fix the anonymous ratings system might net you some good ideas. Many heads are better than one. It's like the wise baboon once said: "Ahhh. Change is good"</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>No, because there's no such thing as an anonymous rater as far as any of the system admins are concerned. All ratings are recorded and we can see exactly who gave who what ratings and if there is a pattern to the ratings (e.g. A and B exchanging all 7s). It's only anonymous to users. Those who think it's truly anonymous and try to cheat soon find out that it isn't! Those found cheating or trying to manipulate ratings or otherwise abusing the system soon find their access restricted or on some cases their accounts on photo.net deleted.</p>

<p>As for suggestion son how to improve the system, "been there, done that" dozens of times. There are enough suggestions in the archives of this forum to write a book. A policy decision has been made on the issue and that's the way it is for now.</p>

[color]

<p>Has double blind rating been tried and if so, why was it abandoned?</p>

[louis_blair]

<p>The only real problem: the low number of ratings.With high rating numbers, anonymous, revenge or friendship ratings or even "cheating" in any way will become useless.The real work is how can we increase the number of ratings...</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I don't think we have tried double blind ratings. As others have pointed out, if people have watermarks and/or copyright notices on their images and/or "frames" with captions and credits, you can't actually have a double blind system.</p>

<p>One has to ask oneself just how much trouble it's worth going to to prevent people abusing the system when (a) it's not a contest, (b) there is no prize and © ratings are simply popularity contest votes given by people who may or may not have any artistic appreciation or knowledge of photography. Personally I'd go to a 3 rating system. (1) I don't like it, (2) it's OK, (3) I like it. That's about as fine a gradation as the system merits.</p>

[alfbailey]

<p>I have to echo the sentiments of Neil, how does a rating (a mere number) help a photographer? In my experience it can have a detrimental effect on a persons own perception of success of thier images, in other words reciprocal ratings can be misconceived as success, whilst at the same time anonymous ratings can be the result of nothing more than sabotage from what I would loosley term "a competitor" or "competitors".<br>

Like Neil I too have opted to post images for "critique only" and I have noticed a growing number of members that seem to moving towards this system, for all of the above reasons and many more I haven't listed. The point is we all have a choice, and if people object to the ratings system they can join the ever increasing number of members that are choosing to post images for "critique only"<br>

In my opinion all photographs are subjective and being so, I don't think a numerical rating is appropriate or even possibly relevant, what I find more helpful is an honest and open appraisal of my images and suggestions for area's of improvement, practical advice, and information, and yeah words of encouragement too! So "policy decision" or not, we do have a choice, we can vote with out feet and simply opt out of ratings if we don't like it. If more people folow the path of "critique only" the rating system will become even more meaningless than it is already and possibly in time become obsolete.<br>

One final point, I do have first hand information of a very talented member who has declined to re-new thier subscription because of the "anon 3's" and the amazing phonomema that was described above by somebody and also experienced by myself ie: - Minutes or even seconds after you post an image it has anon 3's or 4's. I am very sad to see that person leave and only hope that people will choose the other route available for posting images, before they decide to move to pastures new. ie:- "Critique Only"</p>

[joshroot]

I promise you there are as many "instant" 7/7 ratings in the system. In fact, now that I think about it, I actually looked into it

in the database at one point just to satisfy my curiousity. Sure enough, there they were.

 

Ratings are "instant" because they go straight to the top of the rate-images line once submitted. Meaning that anyone

using that interface (which is anonymous) will see the image right away and rate it. I suppose I could figure out some

programmed delay to save people's ego from the horrors of instant feedback. But that always seemed like a waste of

pogrammer time.

[ndj]

<blockquote>

<p><em>No, because there's no such thing as an anonymous rater as far as any of the system admins are concerned. All ratings are recorded and we can see exactly who gave who what ratings and if there is a pattern to the ratings (e.g. A and B exchanging all 7s). It's only anonymous to users.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I assumed that was the case Bob. I have seen 3/3s disappear from a rated image in the past, and assumed it was the admins/moderators taking action, but there's no way you guys can police all the ratings. That'd be impossible. Seems like a huge waste of manpower, and as Josh pointed out, programmers time. Maybe Alf is correct: Perhaps the ratings system has seen better days, and is more trouble than it's worth.<br>

Could the Random Image Generator become a truly random image generator, and show random new images posted? Maybe base the top images on # of views or something along those lines? I'd be happy with anonymous critiques, as long as you have the ability to delete abusive postings.<br>

Just a few suggestions that may in the end save you a lot of grief. Could cause a revolt to I suppose ;-)<br>

Louis also has a point. There a re very few people critiquing/rating images anymore. Larger #s would give you the ability to throw out x # of low ratings, and x # of high ratings to get a reasonable average, or at least lessen the impact of high/low ratings. Beyond requiring a certain # of critiques/ratings to post an image for critique/rating I'm not sure what can be done there.</p>

[fpessolano]

<p>I would be happy with just adding an third option as if rating with comment only. It is now so normal that anything people posts gets a 3-3 or a 4-4 as one of the first 3 rates. Honestly, this automatic low rating on every photo just posted is forcing me to think to either do critique only or simply call PN a failed trial.<br>

I also hate people rating low photos that are misplaced. Just leave a comment and say so! Sometimes is a mistake, sometimes there is no category that fits, etc. If you want to help and give 3 to a great photo just because it is in the wrong category, well ... you are part of the problem.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Francesco, you already have the option to submit your photos for written critique only and to skip the numerical ratings. The numerical ratings are an entirely separate option and serve a different purpose.</p>

<p>There is one advantage to using the option to submit photos for ratings: it gives your photos a chance to be seen by more viewers. More views increases the chances of also receiving written comments.</p>

<p>The suggestion to require raters to also add a comment has been tried. It produced lots of useless compliments like "Wowie wow wow!" (Even now, <a href="../photo/9947654">such compliments often appear as "critiques"</a> to accompany high ratings.)</p>

<p>If you want more useful critiques, ask people whose style of photography you admire to critique your photos. You should use private e-mail for these requests - it's considered bad form to use the critiques/comments sections to ask for reciprocal comments/ratings. Lots of folks already do this. Maybe once a year I'll ask a few folks to critique a folder of photos when I've been working on a special project. That's about as often as I feel any need for written feedback.</p>

<p>But if you submit your photos for ratings, which is just a popularity contest, you'll have to accept the possibility that not everyone will agree that your photos should be popular. It's pretty much like American Idol and similar popularity contests... and just about as useful.</p>

[fpessolano]

<p>Lex - I think I am moving to critique only. I honestly do not mind low rating but with an explanation. Otherwise what is the point.<br>

I myself now tend to leave comments and often not even rate. I actually like Bob´s suggestion of only like, dislike, indifferent.</p>

[bela_dick]

<p>Why not only eliminate the 1 worst anon rating then we might get some closer to the truth. Why? - I have rarely seen more than one real bad anon rating with 3/3 where the rest consist of 5/5 - 7/7. So this 3/3 is either so far off -that he/she should learn to look again before rating - I must admit I did it as I started here on photo.net. But I have learned and will not give a 3/3 without giving a comment why. Or I just leave a comment why I would not give a high rating. <br>

If a 3/3 or lower is given - eliminate one of this. Is that impossible?</p>

 

[bela_dick]

<p>Sorry<br>

...one last thing <br>

 

<p >I must also say that Photo.net has a huge # of people here with extreme high quality. I learn a lot and I feel I have moved to be a better photographer. I learn from the people who visit my site and leave a comment. I wish I could have more time - and give comments to all those superb photographer who have given me so much. One far off anon rater now and then - can not take that away.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Kind regrads</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Bela Dick</p>

<p > </p>

<p >newbie</p>

</p>