snigam Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 <p>As a new photographer, I agree with Greg. I used to rate my own photos based on how many times they got 6 or 7. I used to neglect 3 or 4s. What that means is some people liked my photo a lot and that is my success as amateur photographer. My image touched somebody even if it was only one viewer. Now with average display, I can't figure out if all of them rated my image between 4-5 or there was some 6-7s. It happened just a few days back, one of my photo ('Fall Leaves') got a 7 and fortunately he also wrote a nice comment. Had he not written anything, his rating would have been lost in the average display.<br /> Why not still display total number of 3,4,5,6,7s received in a separate column in a anonymous way, just like old times. The breakdown used to give enough information to photographer to make up his own mind.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveshinn Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 <p>Another note on posting the frequency of each score vs. the average and the names: While I have forever, it seems, wanted accountability and no rating without explanation, the posting of names divorced from the score had some interesting consequences for me.</p> <p>One of our self described "ratings whores" emailed me today, bitterly accusing me of giving him a "low score" on an image. He apparently sits and watches the changes in averages after the names begin to show and then tries to calculate, based on new "averages", what score any new raters have given him.</p> <p>His email went further to imply that he felt that he had now discovered who was sabotaging his and other peoples ratings...! This lead to accusations which then started to get ugly.</p> <p>He seems to be of the opinion that one should only give 6's and 7's and he doesn't like to get anything else. He appears to worship getting images posted on the "Best Photo" page which is, of course driven by the so popular but unqualified "ratings". (I think I gave his image a 5 or a 6..)</p> <p>An exchange of emails culminated with me very patiently explaining to him (he's new to the country and there is a bit of a language barrier) what a scale is all about. I finally advised him that any spreading of rumors, implying that I gave ratings for anything other than for my opinion, could result in legal action.</p> <p>That seemed to get his attention and he called me to apologize. I promised to not toss him into the lake tomorrow.</p> <p>If the old two stage system were reinstated, which as Greg and others have pointed out allows eyeball statistics with median and means demonstrated, this bit of silliness might not happen. My only request would be to not allow anonymous ratings. That would take care of the trolls and jerks.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregverena Posted November 21, 2010 Share Posted November 21, 2010 <p>Well, I was going to let this rest - not exactly life threatening issue - but, with the last 2 comments, it seems my reaction is really not all that rare. We're the kind of folk who generally don't want to cause anyone a bother. But if a few of us make ourselves heard, must be, like cockroaches, there are thousands in the woodwork not seen or heard from of like mind.<br> So, why not do this, allow ratings as the default action when requesting a critique, with an opt out option- or critique only, as before - but link a name to all ratings- what is the purpose of having anon. raters anyway? It seems to have caused all the problems. As far as averaging only when there are 5 - what point is that? On the main photo page, there is an average anyway, even if only 2 ratings, so the math has been done. What happened also to the aesthetics and originality choices? Not really that important - but was interesting.<br> Lastly, we do pay (a little) and we do read the ads- aren't we allowed a little input into this matter? It seems this would eliminate a lot of headaches (non-anon) for moderators and contributors alike.<br> I'm sure the original intent of the change was well meaning - but we can all learn from the customer's (us) reaction to a new program and re act accordingly.<br> With all due respect<br> Happy Thanksgiving everyone.<br> Greg</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndj Posted November 21, 2010 Share Posted November 21, 2010 <p>I think you've made an excellent, and positive change, Josh! I'm looking forward to seeing what else you have up your sleeve. From reading through the posts I can see that not all are pleased with the changes, but overall this seems to be an improvement to me. Keep up the great work I say!<br />ps - Go easy on that Scotch guy ;-)<br> All the best,<br />Neil</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timzeipekis Posted November 21, 2010 Share Posted November 21, 2010 <p>All good things, Josh. As far as names being showed, I'm in favor. I'd like to view others work who find my work interesting whether they liked it or not. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregverena Posted November 22, 2010 Share Posted November 22, 2010 <p>There you go Josh, somebody likes the change :) Of course, if the 2 positives had been 6's and the two negatives, say 4's, they would have averaged out to 5, which, if you had not had the individual comments, you might have construed as everyone being honky dory with the change. Just a thought.<br> Cheers!<br> and positive thoughts<br> Greg</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acarodp Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 <p>Hi Josh,<br> I would like some clarification on a crucial point: by "send some good scotch" I guess you mean single malt. I hope you are not so cheap as being corrupted by some miserable blend right? ;-)</p> <p>Jokes apart, I think it is really a good solution you guys have found now. People can continue looking for tweaking this or that to make the rating information more useful, but this is, I guess, wishful thinking. Rating is pretty much a game, providing a hint (hint, not measure) of the general gut feeling on the site about your photo. In this sense, in fact, I find the number of ratings almost as important as the value, since it is difficult to get attention on a site where a large number of images is submitted continuously.<br> This is not going to change, and there is no way to squeeze out more information than this from a rating, especially because it is, and it will stay, a small number statistics thing. Histograms, medians and so on are useful for those who understand them and when a large enough pool of ratings is available. If one or (often I guess) both conditions are missing, I guess they would just create confusion and promote useless discussions about nothing.</p> <p>Thanks for your work!</p> <p>L.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveshinn Posted November 24, 2010 Share Posted November 24, 2010 <p>If this thread is still alive.. There are some interesting pieces of fallout since I confronted a contributor on his post after getting a very terse and accusatory email from him. Since anyone reading the comments about that image could now see what he was doing I have now gotten some email contact showing that he has shared his suspicion and contempt with others.</p> <p>A lot of folks quickly figured out that if you visit your page frequently (obsessively) you now can easily calculate the rating for each subsequent rater; (New average times number of raters) minus (previous average times the old number of raters) = the new raters score. I suspect that at least one of them is familiar enough with code to write the very simple program needed to monitor and record all of this silliness for them. There's, or will be, an ap for that!</p> <p>Of course the sole reason for this bit of drama is driven by the desire to be a "top rated photographer" or to have a "top rated photo. If that somehow changes then the problem dies. If no ratings could be done anonymously it at least become more honest and reasonable.</p> <p>If one only posts "critique only", no matter how wonderful the image is or complimentary the comments, there is no current way for it to be elevated on this forum. And so the sniping, sabotage and group voting will continue.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gooseberry Posted November 24, 2010 Share Posted November 24, 2010 <blockquote> <p><em>Histograms, medians and so on are useful for those who understand them and when a large enough pool of ratings is available. If one or (often I guess) both conditions are missing, I guess they would just create confusion and promote useless discussions about nothing.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>That's the "dumbing down to the lowest common denominator" I mentioned before... <br />Don't you like to have the option of manual exposure on your camera? Those who don't know how to use it can either stick to full program, or learn, perhaps ruining some shots in the process, but that's not a good reason to get rid of the 'M' setting.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>A lot of folks quickly figured out that if you visit your page frequently (obsessively) you now can easily calculate the rating for each subsequent rater. I suspect that at least one of them is familiar enough with code to write the very simple program needed to monitor and record all of this silliness for them. There's, or will be, an ap for that!</em></p> </blockquote> <p>So the purpose of the current change has been defeated -- those compulsive ones can still figure out who gave what rating -- at the expense of those with no ulterior motives being denied information they have genuine interest in.</p> <blockquote> <p><a name="00Xicc"></a>Sandeep wrote:<br /><em>As a new photographer, I used to rate my own photos based on how many times they got 6 or 7. I used to neglect 3 or 4s. What that means is some people liked my photo a lot and that is my success as amateur photographer. My image touched somebody even if it was only one viewer. Now with average display, I can't figure out if all of them rated my image between 4-5 or there was some 6-7s.</em><br /><em> Why not still display total number of 3,4,5,6,7s received in a separate column in a anonymous way, just like old times. The breakdown used to give enough information to photographer to make up his own mind.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Well said, Sandeep. While I don't push it that far, if an image gets mostly 5s and 6s, I feel it safe to ignore a couple of random 3s, and I don't get overly exited about a single 7 either if the previous condition isn't satisfied (but it's still interesting as it goes to show that even images that are perceived as mediocre by most can be to others' liking.)<br> <br />I wouldn't say <em>don't fix it if it ain't broken</em> cause in a sense it is / has been broken, but the recent "innovation" has mostly downsides and not much of an upside (and the list of names could have been just added, without killing the breakdown.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snigam Posted November 24, 2010 Share Posted November 24, 2010 <p>Hello everybody,</p> <p>I understand that people who rate images do not want to have their rating revealed in order to avoid backlash as mentioned by Steve Shinn. However, we also want to know who has rated the images, so that there is some sense of accountability. These are conflicting goals we are trying to satisfy.</p> <p>I have one suggestion. Mostly for my images, all the ratings come in first 3-4 days (if an image is more popular, I would think 10-15 days). If we only display the average for first 10 days with no details, then nobody can figure out individual score. After 10 days, the details page can show names and in a separate column the breakdown frequency in anonymous way. This way the photographer will have all the details he needs but cannot get individual scores. You can even increase waiting period to 20-30 days, as long as details are available eventually.</p> <p>If you want to get even more sophisticated, you can program it like this: "If the image got a rating in last 4 days, then details page is hidden. If no rating was received in last 4 days, then details page show up. Once the details page is open, let it stay open." This will work for extremely popular images.</p> <p>I really think breakdown frequency used to carry a lot of value for some photographers. Let them have it eventually and interpret it any way they want to interpret.</p> <p>Best wishes... Sandeep</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregverena Posted November 24, 2010 Share Posted November 24, 2010 <p>Geez- why make it so complicated? What's the big deal about anonymity anyway? If you want to rate, have your name attached to it. This works on other sites with no crashing egos.<br> If you don't want to rate, just leave a critique. Simplify- saves time, server space and frayed nerves.<br> Happy Thanksgiving all.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acarodp Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 <blockquote> <p>That's the "dumbing down to the lowest common denominator" I mentioned before... <br />Don't you like to have the option of manual exposure on your camera? Those who don't know how to use it can either stick to full program, or learn, perhaps ruining some shots in the process, but that's not a good reason to get rid of the 'M' setting.</p> </blockquote> <p>Anytime somebody designs an interface, be it on a camera or on a website, he has to decide which control options to give to the user, a choice which, among other things, has to balance simplicity with usefulness. Some options will add enough to the usefulness to overcome the added complications, some other will not, and the thing is tailored to the intended user. So, the fact that a given option is deemed useful (e.g. the M mode) does not make EVERY conceivable option useful.<br> So the real question is: is the M mode useful enough? Yes, in some cameras (no surprise that camera phones mostly don't have it). Is the possibility of displaying rating histograms useful enough? perhaps, but perhaps not. I argue not, you disagree, but this has nothing to do at all with whether I want M mode in my camera.<br> I argue not because:<br> - the sampling is rarely (if ever) statistically significant. A photo of mine is among the best rated street images of the last week. It has, as for now, 16 ratings. Do you really want to do a histogram with 16 samples and 7 bins? And this is well above my typical number of ratings. The photo of mine that was chosen as photo of the week has 28 ratings. Ratings almost never move away from small number statistics.<br> - it has been discussed <em>ad nauseam</em> the extent to which rating is basically a game since images are judged quickly, by anybody, in a way which is totally unfit to (nor is aimed to) assess actual quality, whatever it means. Go to the top rated photos. All you get to "learn" from rating is that BEST photos are either B&W nudes of pretty women (if you select by rating sum) or eye-candy birds in flight (by rating average). Both are perfectly fine photographic genres, but what if I'm interested in street photography instead? I must be wrong, since in 20 pages by rating sum I have found not more than 2 street-ish photos.</p> <p>So what you ask is to be able to draw non-signifcant statistics of a game which holds limited meaning anyway, and little teaching power. This is legitimate, but I really don't feel it might improve your photographic results the way having a M mode on your camera does.</p> <p>In fact, my feeling would be that following rates as a guidance to your photography is the perfect way to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator.</p> <p>Ciao</p> <p>L.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmm Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 <p>Just another positive word for you Josh and PN team. I like this change. Mainly because it will be more likely to make me go and check out - and critique and/or rate - photos from people who have bothered to look at mine.</p> <p>In an idea world I'd join those that would prefer some idea of range or standard deviation as well, but understand that there are higher priorities.</p> <p>Appreciate the work you guys put in for us!</p> <p>BM</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gooseberry Posted November 26, 2010 Share Posted November 26, 2010 <blockquote> <p><em>In fact, my feeling would be that following rates as a guidance to your photography is the perfect way to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Ha-ha, good one Luca! :D<br />...but if ratings are THAT useless, shouldn't we eliminate them altogether?<br /> <br />Seriously though, considering how many members there are on photo.net, and how different their experience must be -- both in terms of photography and statistics -- the optimal solution should cater to the widest possible range of users. Mind you:<br /> (a) what I've suggested isn't exactly rocket science, so a brief online tutorial would suffice to educate those who don't understand it but have the desire to learn (we shouldn't care for those who don't care);<br /> (b) I can't have a look at something that isn't displayed, but I can choose to ignore what is -- now someone else has decided for me;<br /> © Photoshop has more functions that I don't know how to use than those that I do, and most likely this is also true for the majority of PS owners/users, yet I'm not lobbying Adobe do get rid of them in the interest of balancing simplicity with usefulness (before you suggest I could have gotten myself Elements instead of PS, I'd consider photo.net to be the PS of online photographic communities ;) and<br /> (d) don't you pay attention to positive and negative reviews of, say, books on Amazon, even when there's just a handful of them?<br /> <br />As an aside, while ratings may not do justice in cross-genre comparisons (yeah, dermatologists don't enjoy the same fame as neurosurgeons do ;) bet ranking within each genre would prove far more informative and fair.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gooseberry Posted November 26, 2010 Share Posted November 26, 2010 <p>Sorry, forgot .png won't show in-line...</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardenpress Posted November 26, 2010 Share Posted November 26, 2010 <p>Tom has the right idea. The problem has always been for me the "eye" of the critic. I have at times looked up commentors to see what their work was like and then decided if their ratings or comments were within the ballpark. Seeing ratings, for example, from 3-7, one each for a picture is a comment more on the general quality of some members than on a given picture. (Not the ones I agree with, of course.) And since I am lucky enough to have access to my honestly critical friends and colleagues in the Art and Photography department at the private school I teach at I occasionally check with them about whether or not a given relatively mediocrely rated picture is as bad as some PN folks thought. I never mention this. When especially the pro likes the picture I feel somewhat vindicated in my frustration about the given ratings. So in short I was horrified the other day when I realized that all the ratings had been reduced to a single statistic. My only recourse was to take a look at the pictures of the raters to see what the quality of their work was, the better to judge their ratings. That is a time consuming job, and I didn't know who gave out what numbers. I don't believe that people post pictures only for fun, usually, but for a level of validtion. The new system does not really do that, it reduces ratings to a common denominator type of system and reduces the individuality of the art we love to something much less than it was.<br> So I do like Tom's ideas and those of a couple of others. I don't mind the low grades if they are in a context which you have just trashed. Not everyone can like the same pictures after all, but now no one knows where he or she stands. So what is the use? A low grade for a picture from one or two people is explicable only in the context of others' marks. I would rather have grades from trolls, newbies, or the blind rather than an average grade even for the fun or only modestly interesting pictures I have posted that I know do not aspire to being great art.<br> So why post here any longer? The forums, the camera and lens reviews? Since the site seems to be becoming more commercial, the better to pay salaries, why not invest in a larger server to accomodate the highest level of individuality the members should reasonably expect?</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveshinn Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 <p>Just in case I was misunderstood, I am in favor of names on ratings. No anonymity.<br> Same opinion as Gregory Salva.<br> And the beat goes on...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardenpress Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 <p>So to clarify as an academic: A+ to Steve, and Gregory and others who want individual ratings returned, but with names. You click a number and your moniker goes with it. So a fellow who predominantly gets 6s and 7s will have a chance to help train the occasional 3 or 4 poster who probably needs instruction in what having a good eye means. Isn't that what it should be all about apart from the more personal satisfactions of seeing your work on line in a worthy venue?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 <blockquote> <p>So to clarify as an academic: A+ to Steve, and Gregory and others who want individual ratings returned, but with names. You click a number and your moniker goes with it. So a fellow who predominantly gets 6s and 7s will have a chance to help train the occasional 3 or 4 poster who probably needs instruction in what having a good eye means.</p> </blockquote> <p>This has been tried and was a spectacular failure for many many people. The "education" you speak of consisted of harassment, insults, revenge rating and general childish behavior. It drove people from the site and generally made life unpleasant for anyone who dared to try and give an honest opinion that was anything but a high rating.</p> <p>I suppose one can "never say never", but I can say with fairly high certainty that as long as I am the one running photo.net, we will never return to such a system.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted November 27, 2010 Author Share Posted November 27, 2010 <blockquote> <p>And the beat goes on...</p> </blockquote> <p>It should be noted that while I have generally stopped responding in this thread, I am reading every post and do keep suggestions in mind.</p> <p>But the fact of the matter is that I have made my decision and this is the direction we are going to go for a while. It isn't going to be perfect, and it isn't going to make everyone happy. But it IS a different direction from what has been tried in the past and it will allow me to make far more advanced anti-cheating tools than anything else we have used in the past. It's a slow process because we can't just dump everything we've got on the plate in at once, so there is some amount of confusion and frustration (as with the few weeks where all ratings were anonymous). But things are moving forward and the true measure of the changes won't be able to be seen until we have everything together the way we want it.</p> <p>To be honest, there isn't really anything wrong with any of the suggestions here. Any one of them would make some number of people more satisfied than whatever other system was being used at the time. But my job is to figure out what system can be put in place that will satisfy the highest number of people and operate the most smoothly. It's frustrating that there will always be some segment of the userbase who is unsatisfied. But that is the nature of the beast with something like this.</p> <p>And that is a slightly long way of saying that I'm reading, but I'm not going to respond point by point to every suggestion or argument put forth. Thank you all for caring enough to spend the time making posts and offering opinions, I'm surprised at the overall polite tone of the conversation given the anger that can come with the subject. It's been nice to see that avoided for once.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 <blockquote> <p>"So a fellow who predominantly gets 6s and 7s will have a chance to help train the occasional 3 or 4 poster who probably needs instruction in what having a good eye means."</p> </blockquote> <p>In actual practice, that translates to groupthink coercing individuals to conform to the group's standards. The end result over the years has been mutual backrub cliques doling out high ratings that are no more informative or valuable than the occasional unexplained rating of 3 or 4.</p> <p>At best it produces a lukewarm sense of comfort for folks who want to live in Lake Wobegon, where all the photographers are above average. Those who conform to groupthink will be ensured of mutually high, and mutually insincere, ratings.</p> <p>At worst it tends to produce a dynamic that results in bullying of those who dare to stray outside the group norm. It's not a good thing here or on any other site I visit that has adopted that approach.</p> <p>Anyone who cares to improve their eye where ratings are concerned will do so gradually through experience. But it would be hypocritical to challenge someone who rates a photo lower than average to justify that rating, while not demanding the same of those who rate it highly.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardenpress Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 <p>Yes, the discourse has been civilized. I thought that more members might have weighed in and wonder why they haven't either way. Josh and Lex and Bob(Atkins) know more about what has been going on with the bullying. Jealousy in the art world is a given, unfortunately, where bitchiness is too frequent.<br />I suppose that my proposal and those of Steve and Gregory are a bit naive or idealistic. Plato's "Republic" can be read as a cosmic joke by a man who understood that his ideal ruler can exist only in one's mind as an abstraction, and maybe not at ideal one at that. <br />I do mean to suggest, contrary to what Lex assumes, that the teaching of those who don't know much about photography could be schooled in the basics--rule of thirds, simple techniques that anyone should know. There are posters who have asked for just such information, it seems to me. I don't mean to impose an aesthetic on anyone and admire those who try to improve. It is my profession and has been for more than fifty years, to get students to a point where they understand the language I teach and how various authors use it, and finally how the literature might be interpreted. There are many rooms in that house.<br />So good luck in removing the worst excesses. But try not to deprive the rest of us of the often useful simple criticisms of raters. Probably after I retire in June I'll start using the critique mode and rely less on ratings. Ill be interested in what you have in store for us in the future.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 <p>Ed, I should have included some examples that actually do confirm your best case scenario. For example, <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=888636">John Crosley</a> routinely invites/challenges (depends on ones perspective I suppose) viewers who rate his photos below average to defend their ratings (by "defend" I mean that in the classical sense of debate). And because he doesn't attack or belittle anyone's opinion his photo critiques are often fascinating, if lengthy, lively discussions that reveal a lot both about our expectations as photographers and perceptions as viewers. Offhand I can think of perhaps a dozen other photo.net members who are equally willing to discuss a photograph's merits and flaws in comparable frank and constructive terms.</p> <p>But for every one such member there are too many others who assert that anyone who rates lower than the average from an anonymous position (or, in the case of the current system, semi-cloaked position) , is simply a coward. Google the term on photo.net and you'll see how often that word is used to describe anyone who dares to deviate from the norm.</p> <p>There's an implication that someone who rates lower than the average - and whose rating is publicly attributable or traceable - is necessarily ill-versed in the art of critique and in need of remediation. That may tend to discourage all but the hardiest folks from offering honest ratings that can be traced back to them.</p> <p>It could be argued conversely that unexplained low ratings discourage photographers from submitting their photos for ratings. That may be so. In that case it's a trade-off. Do we protect the delicate sensibilities of the photographers who request ratings, or those of the viewers who volunteer to offer ratings? Since submitting photographs for ratings is an entirely voluntary act chosen by the photographer, the best compromise seems to be to hedge the protection slightly in favor of the viewers who choose to rate the photos. Since the ratings have consistently been described as little more than a popularity contest judged by photo.net members at large, and which system is now entirely separated from the written critiques system, it's reasonable to ask that photographers who submit their photos to such a popularity contest should don a tough hide first. That's how it works in any such situation, including submitting work for selection to a juried art fair, an actor's audition for a role, a writer's or musician's attempt to get an agent or publisher, or popularity contests like American Idol. Since photo.net is among the most carefully moderated photography sites around, it's reasonable to assume that most viewers who choose to rate photos are there because they're sincerely interested in photography and not merely lurking for the sport of trolling. When I was active in local theater years ago, I rarely received a call explaining why I didn't get a role. Likewise, when I directed plays, I never called back the actors who weren't cast. There simply wasn't enough time and it wouldn't have been productive anyway. Most folks involved in acting understand the way things work. They don't leap to a conclusion that the director or casting agent is a troll or coward. Well, at least most don't. There are always a few neurotics in any creative endeavor, it goes with the territory.</p> <p>The place to approach the mentoring concept of helping a viewer to improve his/her aesthetic vision is the written critique where it's perfectly reasonable to challenge both the critic and the photographer to defend an opinion.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveshinn Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 <p>If real cases matter, I would like to offer a few I just found by accident that make an interesting case.<br> Two "names" both registered on the same date. Neither apparently posts any images but both rate others shots. It would be foolish to assume I just happened to find the only two who do this. </p> <p>When I looked at the "photos rated highest by this member", I found that <strong>all of the 7's in both cases were only of nudes</strong> and, IMHO, not very good ones at that!</p> <p>Given that the "Top Rated Photos" and "Top Photographers" are driven by these charming little numbers that we have all come to love so much, it is clear that these two among who knows how many others, can easily cause great damage to these ratings. This would be especially true for newer members who haven't gone to great and obsessive lengths to cultivate huge stable of loyal followers. Their large numbers would dilute these spoilers but newer and less aggressive members can be shot down in flames.</p> <p>I've emailed the identities of these "members" to Josh. But you might want to do a bit of investigating on images that seem to be getting strange ratings.</p> <p>Once more, I'll make the case for full disclosure. If a rating, be it high or low, requires a comment a lot of this silliness will go away. If somebody cannot deal with honest criticism, they should go post on one of the funny forums. If you don't want a critique or rating you don't ask for one. <br> See below.</p> <table border="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td colspan="8"> <p>Ratings Given</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>1</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>2</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>3</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>4</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>5</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>6</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>7</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Ratings</strong></p> </td> <td> <p>72</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>50</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table border="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td colspan="8"> <p>Ratings Given</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>1</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>2</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>3</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>4</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>5</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>6</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>7</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Ratings</strong></p> </td> <td> <p>90</p> </td> <td> <p>72</p> </td> <td> <p>126</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>38</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveshinn Posted November 28, 2010 Share Posted November 28, 2010 <p>If real cases matter, I would like to offer a few I just found by accident that make an interesting case.<br> Two "names" both registered on the same date. Neither apparently posts any images but both rate others shots. It would be foolish to assume I just happened to find the only two who do this. </p> <p>When I looked at the "photos rated highest by this member", I found that <strong>all of the 7's in both cases were only of nudes</strong> and, IMHO, not very good ones at that! You'll notice that there are only 1's given to others and no 4's, 5's or 6's in the other. At least some of those were of bird and nature shots leading one to suspect that if it wasn't a naked female human, it got dinged. </p> <p>Given that the "Top Rated Photos" and "Top Photographers" are driven by these charming little numbers that we have all come to love so much, it is clear that these two among who knows how many others, can easily cause great damage to these ratings. This would be especially true for newer members who haven't gone to great and obsessive lengths to cultivate huge stable of loyal followers. Their large numbers would dilute these spoilers but newer and less aggressive members can be shot down in flames.</p> <p>I've emailed the identities of these "members" to Josh. But you might want to do a bit of investigating on images that seem to be getting strange ratings.</p> <p>Once more, I'll make the case for full disclosure. If a rating, be it high or low, requires a comment a lot of this silliness will go away. If somebody cannot deal with honest criticism, they should go post on one of the funny forums. If you don't want a critique or rating you don't ask for one. I hate to hear of other members feeling as though they have been sabotaged but that is what happens with no accountability. I don't know about the rest you but that really frosts my junk!<br> See below.</p> <table border="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td colspan="8"> <p>Ratings Given</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>1</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>2</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>3</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>4</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>5</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>6</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>7</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Ratings</strong></p> </td> <td> <p>72</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>50</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table border="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td colspan="8"> <p>Ratings Given</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>1</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>2</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>3</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>4</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>5</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>6</strong></p> </td> <td> <p><strong>7</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong>Ratings</strong></p> </td> <td> <p>90</p> </td> <td> <p>72</p> </td> <td> <p>126</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>0</p> </td> <td> <p>38</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now