Rating below "Good"?

[jfr1]

<p>I do not get any joy out of rating below "Good" and consequently don't do it. How about you?</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>Jan,<br>

You may want to <strong>"Back the Truck up a bit"</strong> and reconsider your statement!<br>

I don't want to open up a can of worms, . . . but surely you know that we (the community) can see your, or anyone elses rating statistics and history.</p>

 

[jgalyon]

<p>Should the primary purpose of rating photos be about feeling a sense of "joy"...or the lack thereof? It's been a while since I've rated any pics, but my average rating is quite high because I tend to rate photos that I feel have some merit. But...over the years I've rated quite a few photos with a 1 or 2. For me, giving out low scores isn't about "being mean" to someone for a bad photo...it's more about giving a wakeup call to someone who apparently doesn't see just how bad the shot really is. If the person's bio indicates they're a beginner...I don't rate, but will sometimes offer a tip on how the photo might be improved, but more often I'll ask why the photographer did something a certain way...or simply ask how <em>they</em> felt about the photo, in hopes of starting a dialogue, instead of lambasting their effort, no matter how poor I might see it. I reserve the ones and twos for photographers that I feel should know better, such as those who say they've been shooting for 20 years and offer a real stinker for critique. As for "joy"...I would get no joy out of handing out a good rating for an obviously bad photo. I'd just feel guilty. Offering a low rating when it's deserved is kinda like disciplining a child. It's not something that brings joy...but there's a sense of satisfaction (for lack of a better word) that you know you've done something that will hopefully help the person improve their efforts in the end, regardless if it stings a bit at the time it occurs.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I don't get any particular joy out of rating photos lower than 5. But I assume that folks who submit their photos for ratings want honest opinions. And I rate everything I see in the queue for a given genre on the occasions when I do rate photos. So many of my ratings are below 5.</p>

<p>My overall average for ratings given is around 4.5. That's probably the average overall for anyone who rates photos without cherry picking, discrimination or preference for only photos that we "like".</p>

[sfcole]

<p>The whole rating system is preposterous because of grade inflation. I almost never see a photo with a low rating, no matter how poor the photo is. People seem unable to admit that an average photo should get an average grade. All photos are apparently above average.<br>

An overall average rating of 4.5 shouldn't make any sense, just as an average grade for a large college class should not be an 89.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>The whole rating system is preposterous because of grade inflation. I almost never see a photo with a low rating, no matter how poor the photo is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup, it's one of the worst aspects about the ratings system, the cause of most of the other issues, and the hardest thing to solve.</p>

[stp]

<p>I've never felt a single number will "help" anyone, and I've always felt a single number says more about the rater than about the photo being rated ("I like this photo," or "I don't like this photo"). A comment can be much more informative and useful, especially if it gets beyond "Great shot!" I don't rate and haven't for years; I do provide comments, and I try to make most of my comments useful.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"An overall average rating of 4.5 shouldn't make any sense..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Didn't make sense to me either. I figured my overall average for ratings given would have been much lower, closer to 3. But it's probably because of my personal bias toward rating only in specific genres that interest me, rather than stuff that doesn't interest me (nudes, digital alterations, etc.). If I rated all photos without regard to genre my overall average would probably be lower.</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Whenever I read one of these threads gripping about people giving out low ratings, I go and look at the ratings average the OP received on their latest uploads... usually clear up any misconceptions about altruistic motivations.</p>

[jim_gardner4]

<p>I read all that pretty fast but surely people dont rate photos high just to be nice to the photographer do they? Whats the point in that? I have submitted a few photos for rating, some were rated higher than I expected and some lower. Its relativly interesting but I wouldnt loose any sleep over "bad scores" or do kartwheels round the room for very high ones.</p>

<p>If I think a photo I have submitted for rating is good but it received an average rating of 2 for example, so what? It shows the opinion of the raters but doesnt make it a worse photo.</p>

<p>I have rated several 6s and one or two 1s I think although this is sometimes due to the catorgory they are put in. For example, if a very good landscape was put in nude (yes I know thats very unlikely) I would rate it low.</p>

<p>If posters dont want to get low scores either delete the 1,2 or 3 option or dont post them. Also lets remember that as far as I understand it, 4 is average. Thats not too bad is it?</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I don't rate at all, but prefer comments when I see a photo of interest, good or bad.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>"<strong>surely people dont rate photos high just to be nice to the photographer do they?"</strong><br>

Yes, actually I think that's the problem. No one wants to hurt anyone's feelings.</p>

[jtk]

<p>I admit to having "rated" a few images, felt guilty afterward. I didn't understand that rating was a terrible, deeply unethical thing to do as the system was defacto designed to make popular images seem better than more perceptive unpopular ones. The result is that many participants are pandering to it. It's a homogenizing popularity machine. Phew!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'd love to see us fine tune other ways of members relating to each others' photos and giving visibility to exceptional photos. </p>

[KristinLauman]

<p>From a newbies perspective:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I think a photo I have submitted for rating is good but it received an average rating of 2 for example, so what? It shows the opinion of the raters but doesnt make it a worse photo.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Would that be the mindset of a person who is trying to learn and understand how to improve but doesn't know all the in's and out's of what makes an image a "6"? </p>

<p>As one of those people, I can tell you that when I get rated with 3's and it has NO critique, I'm both sad and frustrated. Not because I need praise but because I crave input. I post images that I work hard on and because I want to improve. I didn't stand in front of an allium patch for 4 hours in 95 degree weather because there was nothing better to do. I have a passion and a vision, and I'm trying to hone it. If I wanted mere praise, I can just show them to my family. I come HERE because I want critique.</p>

<p>I have posted an image one month and watched it get 3's, then deleted it and re-posted it to see it pickup 5's & 6's and end up being one of my strongest rating. What the heck?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If posters dont want to get low scores either delete the 1,2 or 3 option or dont post them. Also lets remember that as far as I understand it, 4 is average. Thats not too bad is it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've never posted anything here with the goal of being average. First of all, average as compared to what? My uncle Mervin and his Coolpix, or Ansel Adams? Secondly, I think most people here--admittedly not all--really want to be creating art that is better than average. But its a challenge to learn when the great photographers rate only other great photographers or rate average photographers with low scores but give no feedback. </p>