THE DREADED RATING ISSUE, rev., ed. 1

[michaellinder]

<p>Here's my question - right to the point. What is the reason a PN participant would rate an abstract photograph a 1 or 2? It appears to me that a rating of 3 is clear enough a message that the viewer didn't like the image. A rating of 1 or 2 strikes me as being simply destructive, vindictive, and counterproductive.</p>

<p>Personally, I suspect that this issue concerns abstract photography more than any other genre. When a viewer is asked to view an image that does not contain a recognizable subject, being unhappy with it because it lacks a story, or the depth of field is inappropriate, or the exposure is off may not be suitable. </p>

<p> </p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Michael, think of it this way: Your abstracts have stirred emotions which is more than most images are able to do. I would take that as a positive. To me, indifference will be much worse. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>If a rating of 1 or 2 on a fixed scale is too low use, then 3 is the defacto lowest rating, right? Which means that issuing a 3 is - being the new lowest - a sign of vindictive destructiveness? The number doesn't matter. The fact that you're issuing the lowest you can (or that you allow yourself to) is what matters. <br /><br />There's no reason that a critic can consider a hamfisted, poorly-executed landscape or portrait to be a 1, but an abstract can't be. I've seen (and created!) plenty of abstracts that deserve no better than a 1 or a 2. Just because something is an abstract doesn't mean it isn't boringly derivative, agonizingly pretentious, full of JPG artifacts, or otherwise every bit as needing an honestly given "this really needs work" rating from someone who is taking the time to look at it.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Do you seek ratings for purposes of being in some kind of contest or to seek feedback?</p>

[joshroot]

<p>What is the point of having a ratings scale if you aren't going to use all of it? I suppose we could just have a "thumbs up/thumbs down" choice.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>As a side note, Matt brings up a very good point. If 1's and 2's are eliminated from use, then people will grow to hate 3's just as much as 1 and 2.</p>

<p>Case in point:</p>

<p>A previous Photo.net admin decided that he'd had it with people complaining about low ratings. So he made the (questionable) decision to hide all 1 and 2 ratings. So that the lowest rating anyone could see on their image was a 3. Now this sort of thing works ONLY if nobody figures out what you are doing. Which, somewhat unsurprisingly, didn't take very long. So then everyone hated a 3 just as much as they hated a 1 or a 2. Here's a fine example:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/5615396</p>

<p>So, as Matt points out, doing that sort of thing brings us back full circle.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>I give 3/3s all the time. Just today, this guy turned right on a red light, right in front of me and I yelled, "You FnC#ing 3/3!" and the other day I squished my finger between the flywheel and magneto on my lawnmower and muttered "Sssson of a 3/3".</p>

<p>They really are worse than 1s or 2s.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Josh and Matt: I get your point. The rating itself is not an absolute; it is relative to the scale in which it is used. </p>

<p>Matt: I don't think I said, or even insinuated, that an abstract is beyond criticism or exempt from low ratings. So I'll throw the ball back into your court. What, in your opinion, constitutes an abstract that really needs work? </p>

<p>John: I post for ratings to obtain feedback. That's why I also post for critique. I am interested in growing and learning. Hence my question to Matt, above.</p>

<p>Michael: Your point is interesting. It reminds me of something I tend to forget occasionally, deriving from my love of philosophy. My own purpose in engaging in abstract photography is to try awakening people from their "dogmatic slumbers." That too was my aim in teaching and writing philosophy.</p>

<p>Bottom line - - I've argued before (as others have done) in favor of eliminating ratings altogether. Oh well - - I have to get past that dead horse.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Michael: You <em>can</em> completely eliminate ratings by not asking for them, by not providing them, and by ignoring the subset of PN features that happen to make use of or display them. It is indeed a sub-set of the site's broad activity, and is decoupled from the actual critiquing end of things.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think I said, or even insinuated, that an abstract is beyond criticism or exempt from low ratings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. But what you said is that there's no point giving an abstract the <em>lowest</em> rating. You didn't say that abstracts are beyond criticism, but seem to be suggesting that they - as a genre - ought to be immune from <em>honest</em> criticism (in the form of rating numbers, at least, which are meant to quickly capture the viewer's reaction to the image, on a simple scale), because nobody can honestly call an abstract bad. We disagree on that, fundamentally.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What, in your opinion, constitutes an abstract that really needs work?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Trick question! I react to every photograph individually. If I see lack of originality, or signs of carelessness, etc., in <em>any</em> photograph, I react accordingly. Those details may manifest themselves differently in different genres or in specific cases, but I know them when I see them (or commit them, myself). I attempt to take the context of the image into account when it makes sense to do so. Of note: I am here defending the existence of a bottom of the scale that doesn't start with a vanity-oriented and faux-self-esteem-movement "3," and I'm defending the right to issue a "1" or a "2" as I see fit ... but I rarely, rarely do. Out of over 4,000 ratings I've given, I've dished out precisely three "1" ratings.<br /><br />I have to sense something approaching a photographer's actual contempt for their please-rate-my-photo audience - almost a willful "screw you" from the photographer - before an image will get my "1" trigger finger itching. I've seen fit to dole out roughly half of one percent of my ratings as a "2" - and, behing honest, that number should be higher. I simply cannot help but skip over some irredeemable photographs, but might be more inclined to drop a "2" on someone who, in my quick judgement, appears to be someone who probably knows the image they've put up for a rating wasn't a good choice. I can't read minds, but some patterns do make themselves clear after hundreds and hundreds of ratings.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I post for ratings to obtain feedback. That's why I also post for critique. I am interested in growing and learning.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK Good. No worries. Since any rating under a three is merely someone "being simply destructive, vindictive, and counterproductive" then those ratings don't apply as feedback or learning and can simply be ignored. Since there is no contest type motive, those easily identifiable ratings have no effect on what's trying to be accomplished.</p>

 

[michaellinder]

<p>John: QED - your argument is valid.</p>

<p>Matt: Ratings are numbers. They can reflect any number of reasons why a viewer likes, or doesn't like, a photograph. Where we differ concerns what constitutes criticism. I don't view a number in that vein at all. THAT'S why I asked you the "trick question". Look - - in the final analysis, I really don't give a rat's behind whether you or anyone else likes my work. Anyone - yourself included - has every privilege and every right - to rate any of my photographs as low as you want. But I won't consider that as criticism. Numbers don't teach me anything when it comes to learning photography. I will take into consideration your point about not posting for ratings; that may work for me.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>A low rating, often, can be worn as a badge of honor. Take a look at the highest-rated photos and ask if you're trying to do that kind of work. If you are, and you get low ratings, start doing HDRs, nudes of females (preferably two females or one female and some rope), and very saturated landscapes. If the top-rated-photos, on the other hand, seem common, uninspired, and all seem to kind of look alike, be proud of your low rating. It might just mean you're actually doing something right.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Interesting, Fred. As I indicated in an earlier response to Matt, I've decided to stop posting for ratings and to let the chips fall where they may. I came to the conclusion after the recent conclusion to 4 months of hell that I need to occupy my time with more significant matters. In fact, in retrospect, I really am not sure why I even posted this thread. </p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, if someone finds enough value (in either direction) in a photograph I've posted for critique, I hope that the person will invest some time in providing some feedback. If the person has no interest or intent in providing feedback . . . oh well. Just keep on walkin'.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>To quote a legendary exchange between one of the great archaeologists and a student:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Student: Professor G, why did you give me an F?<br>

Professor G: Because there isn't any lower grade.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To relate that to what goes on here, I'd just say from my personal experience that there are a lot of very mean people who rate my personal top pictures irresponsibly low. Suck it up and go on, or don't post for ratings.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Michael, I usually don't offer many critiques but if interested message me some pics and I'll see if I can help.</p>

[jimadams]

<p>Oh, gosh, ratings <em>again</em>?</p>

<p>Since it's probably a year or so since I commented on ratings, here are my thoughts again. If anyone's interested. My question is...what will a photographer learn from a numerical rating? I mean, other than the fact that someone really likes or hates your photograph? And how much can you really <em>trust</em> ratings? If you've been around p.net long enough, you know there are people who click through the ratings as fast as they can work the keyboard. </p>

<p>The only thing I ever learned from ratings was back in the old days when you could see who was giving you low ratings. There was some guy on here who gave 3/3s to everything I submitted. Everything. So I figured this guy was just some troll or something. I looked at his "work" and it all looked like vacation snapshots. So much for the validity of his thoughts on my photographs. This was pretty much when I decided that ratings were meaningless to me. And some people who consistently rate low don't even have any photos of their own to show.</p>

<p>Speaking for myself, I very seldom submit for ratings any more. I'm more interested in improving my craft (such as it is). I think photographers will learn much more from a good honest critique (whether it's good or bad), than they ever will from some random number. You can fine tune the critique process even more by not allowing anonymous critiques.</p>

<p>Ratings basically do one of two things. They will either boost your ego, or they'll squash it. I can do without either.</p>