Ratings submission system change...

[joshroot]

<p>Small change to the ratings/critique submission system.<br>

The ratings and critique systems now have completely different submission links. You choose one or the other to request. They are supposed to be thought of as different systems, and so we thought they should finally have different submission processes.<br>

Full instructions here:<br>

http://www.photo.net/help/gallery/ratings/ratings-submission<br>

<img src="../help/gallery/ratings/images/ratings-submit2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[richterjw]

<p>I like the change. Will submitting to one exclude you from being able to submit to the other? JR</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>I like the change. Will submitting to one exclude you from being able to submit to the other? JR</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It should not, as long as everything is operating correctly.</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>it seems the rating structure has also changed to a average overall rating rather than a separate aesthetic and original rating. is this a permanent change and if so doesnt the original rating system offer more specific information to the photographer about their image?</p>

[joshroot]

Ahhhhhhhh...foo.

 

That wasn't supposed to be in this update. But yes, it's intentional. Our research shows that fewer than 5% of ratings are

anything other than the same number twice (3/3 5/5 etc).

 

So to simplify, we're going to one number. While admirable in concept, the O/A system simply didnt work very well. It also implied that there was more info to be gleaned from the ratings system than there realistically could be. People looking for more indepth feedback should be using the critique system.

As the ratings system is not likely to give the info they want.

[joshroot]

<h2>Mike Stemberg,</h2>

<p>I sent you an email about the issue you reported.</p>

<p>I deleted the first report and the second because it was not something that should have happened and I did not want to confuse people.</p>

[mike_stemberg]

<p>Rightyho Josh,<br /> OK, early glitches and teething problems for sure. No worries (as the Aussies say!)<br /> Just checking out the 'unified rating' system I rated a couple of images, and then wanted to pass on the third ~without rating that particular image, and I got this message....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We had a problem processing your entry:</p>

<ul>

missing operand at _@_ in expression "(+_@_)/2.0"

</ul>

<p>Please back up using your browser, correct it, and resubmit your entry.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Another little glitch, or are we not able to bypass images that we do not want to rate for whatever reason?</p>

<p>These changes to photo,net are truly welcomed. Thanks to everybody for all the work.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Glitch.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>This is fun. Probably not for Josh, but it is for me. I like all the new stuff! I'm off to hunt for glitches.</p>

[iancoxleigh]

<p>How does this effect the 4 per day limit? Do we get 4 ratings and 4 critique requests, or 4 of both together?</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>I submitted a photograph twice, once for critique and once for rating and it worked just fine. However, the photograph does not appear to be available for rating when viewed through the critique forum. Does this imply that rating photos can only be done through one of the "Rate Photos" streams and if so, will all ratings now be anonymous?</p>

<p>Are 1s and 2s enabled again or is it still 3-7?</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>How does this effect the 4 per day limit? Do we get 4 ratings and 4 critique requests, or 4 of both together?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Should be four of each, someone let me know if it is not.</p>

[iancoxleigh]

<p>Oh, one more thing, I have noticed that I am allowed to change a rating I gave from the critique page but I can not change a rating I gave anonymously from the rating interface. I assume this is intentional, but I sometimes I change my mind after a little while so I probably won't be using the anonymous interface again.</p>

<p>Perhaps this has been so for a while. I haven't used the anonymous interface in more than a year.</p>

[iancoxleigh]

<blockquote>

<p>Should be four of each, someone let me know if it is not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I appear to be able to still submit either for ratings or for critiques from the image page. But, if I have just finished submitting for one or the other and I click the "submit another" link on the follow-up page, I am told I have reached my 4-per-day limit which I have if they are combined, but have not if they are individually.<br>

As I noted, I am still able to submit another. Just not from that 'submit another' link. Do you want a screen-shot? Or have I been clear enough.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>I submitted a photograph twice, once for critique and once for rating and it worked just fine. However, the photograph does not appear to be available for rating when viewed through the critique forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can see the 'rate image' just fine on that photo, if you are talking about the Panoramic beach shot. If you are logged in, you can't actually see the "rate" tab on your own images simply because you cannot rate your own images. That has been that way for a long time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does this imply that rating photos can only be done through one of the "Rate Photos" streams and if so, will all ratings now be anonymous? Are 1s and 2s enabled again or is it still 3-7?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While there will be less and less crossover between the two systems (ratings and critique), nothing should have changed but the submission process. I will announce any other changes as I announced this one.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>h, one more thing, I have noticed that I am allowed to change a rating I gave from the critique page but I can not change a rating I gave anonymously from the rating interface. I assume this is intentional, but I sometimes I change my mind after a little while so I probably won't be using the anonymous interface again.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As with other site submissions, there should be an edit window on ratings after which no changes are possible. Due to various changes/updates, it may not be consistent across the board. I will look into it.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>I appear to be able to still submit either for ratings or for critiques from the image page. But, if I have just finished submitting for one or the other and I click the "submit another" link on the follow-up page, I am told I have reached my 4-per-day limit which I have if they are combined, but have not if they are individually.<br /> As I noted, I am still able to submit another. Just not from that 'submit another' link. Do you want a screen-shot? Or have I been clear enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perfectly clear. We will look into it.</p>

[iancoxleigh]

<blockquote>

<p>As with other site submissions, there should be an edit window on ratings after which no changes are possible. Due to various changes/updates, it may not be consistent across the board. I will look into it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That explains it. I made the anonymous rating earlier in the day. I was simply unaware that there was now a time limit of revising ratings either way. I've gone and looked at other images that I rated before and the option to change my rating is now gone as you describe. I used to occasionally revise ratings a long time later (months). I can see why that might be problematic and understand the changes, but I will miss what was (as one usually does).</p>

 

[joshroot]

<p>It is understandable for opinions to change on an image over time, I surely have changed mine over the years. Some of the stuff I thought was amazing 10 years ago surely hasn't held up in my mind as "good".</p>

<p>But the ability to change ratings after the fact is just too much a temptation for cheaters and the "revenge rater" crew.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

I went to Rate Photos under the Gallery drop down tab. If I choose to skip giving a rating and press the "next" arrow I get this:

 

Problem with Your Input

We had a problem processing your entry:

 

missing operand at _@_ in expression "(+_@_)/2.0"

 

Please back up using your browser, correct it, and resubmit your entry.

 

If I back up and give a rating only then does the "next" arrow brings me to the next photograph.

[James G. Dainis]

Ooops, now I see that my above post had been earlier addressed. Never mind.

[mtfaidherbe1]

<p>Personnally I liked very much the two different rates. A ordinary subject can make a very esthetic picture, and an original idea can be not very esthetic.</p><p>If less than 5 % use it, doesn't matter. If people did not take the time to think about the difference, will they take the time to write a useful comment ?</p><p>AND, that you change it from the present and the future, why make dissappear the preceding ones ? </p><p><br></p>

[balthazarmaisch]

<p>Like Marie Thérèse I'am very disappointed by this change with an unique rating.<br>

It looks like computering data base way of simplify thingsmade by machine. and apparently it's erasing all the past !<br>

It's a shame to do it like that! without any consultations of members.<br>

Aesthetic / Originality is a nice, smart, intelligent way to give a rate. It is the great particularity of PHOTONET.</p>

<p><strong>With all my respect to managers here, I am asking officially to come back to previous rate System.</strong></p>

<p>Looking forward support of others members thinking like me.<br>

a Faithfull member,<br>

Balthazar Maisch</p>

[bmm]

<p>Its not an important issue for me but I do line up with those others that preferred the 2-rating system. I enjoyed being able to separately as "is it a good idea" (originality) and "is it well executed" (aesthetics).</p>

<p>As one very specific example of where I'm a bit stuck with only one rating... I <strong>hate</strong> cheezy pet portraits with a vengeance. With 2 scales I was able nevertheless to give an Aesthetics rating that was high for well done ones, even though I loathe the subject/idea (so they might get a 5/2 or 6/2 etc).</p>

<p>What worries me is that in the example above I would give a 3, as an average of my strong reactions to the photo's content and execution. But I would also give a 3 to a middle-of-the-road image to which I am indifferent. The same rating therefore will mean two very different things.</p>

<p>By the way yes I do comment/critique a fair bit and yes I will continue to do so. But that does not take away from my liking for the old rating system.</p>

[balthazarmaisch]

<p>Thank you BM Mills, <br>

Because you exactly describe what my poor written english (am a french born, you know these "neverhappypeople(s) in their beautifullcountry...", what I was trying here to argument.</p>

<p>to try to look in the future if the system stay like people managing (with a so great talent, I insist, UNTIL today.)<br>

and I will respect it if they respect me...</p>

<p>we could may be think about a "autofill" stuff in the comment field ready to enter a difference, between the technically success of a shoot and the feeling we have it's a NEW WAY to say something.</p>

<p>?</p>

<div></div>