PN Eliminate Ratings Availability For "0" Public Photos Uploaded Members?

[Phil_Light]

I would like to propose eliminating the ratings availability of so-

called "members" without public photo uploads of their own. We do not

know if these "members" even realize which end of camera might be

used to make an exposure, let alone critique or rate photo's of

legitimate photographers. Most often, I have noticed that poor

ratings on photos which additionally contain excellent ratings most

often come from so-called "members" without any publicly uploaded

photos of their own. Photo.net should strongly consider eliminating

availability of the ratings to these questionable members. Many times

legitimate e-mail addresses will not be found on these "member" pages

as well. Please bring a halt to the subversion of the legitimate use

of the Photo.net site. Contact me if you want representative examples!

[rich815]

Some great movie critics have no idea how to make a movie and never will. Some of the best art critics have never lifted a paint brush or done a sculpture, and never will. Just knowing how to take a photo does not mean one knows how to critique other's photography, even if they are good photographers.

[matt_otoole]

While Richard has a point, there's probably a sniper element out there that could be eliminated by doing this. Plus, I've noticed that the best criticism here comes from the most knowledgeable community members, who also happen to be the best photographers (at least from what I've seen).

 

As if I should talk, with no uploaded photos!

[Phil_Light]

Give me some examples of these illustrious photo critics and I'll rescind my comment entirely!

[Phil_Light]

Matt you might not have mentioned that! That fact that you have no photo uploads may make you a prime candidate. Thanks for your comments and perspective. Remember, it might be kind of knit-picky, but I mentioned competent photo critique. I still believe one needs to develop the skills and sensibility for good art or photographic critique. So, by eliminating the sniper fire from the "0" uploaders in this way, we might actually encourage them to participate in a more expansive way by say, involvement! This can't be bad.

[mark_scheuern]

I've certainly noticed that dopey ratings and snide comments are almost always made by people with "0 Public Photos Uploaded", but you can't turn that around and say that most people with no photos posted engage in that behavior. There can be legitimate reasons for not uploading, like not having access to a scanner or digital camera.

[eric_onore]

You are posting your photos to a Internet website available to anyone in the world with a computer and a Internet connection, and you are then questioning the quality of the critiques? Just ignore the comments or ratings that you do not agree with or better yet, find some people whose opinions you trust to give you feedback on your work.

[seven]

Some of the '0' uploaders are indeed snipers - or aliases belonging to other

members with uploads. Some with 20 uploads are also aliases belonging to

other photographers - should you have exif reader, note the details of the

camera declared in the technical field - and compare it to the one used to

capture the image....not always the same for obvious reasons. (Some even

forget they've filled in the © field in the fake account upload.)

 

However, before jumping to conclusions, have a closer look at the member's

Community Member page. Note their "uploads" to the various Forums,

Billboards, Static Pages and so on. Uploading pics is not the only way to

contribute to this site. Some of the most prolific contributors have no uploads

- many did at some stage, learned what they needed - and moved into the

more technical areas of photo.net.

 

A tip - don't click on the little rating box (thar be dragons) - click on the name

of those who offer critiques.

[Phil_Light]

Appreciate your insight and suggestions! I'm just attempting to raise the bar on how we approach art/photo critique. As mentioned earlier, it may be futile to attempt to change a methodology on a public internet sight. Thanks all for your reponses and perspective's, they're good for me to take in as well. Also, impressed with the caliber of imagery from many of you who responded. Thanks for the help in diffusing my perception's from the initial rant. Keep up with the fine imaging.

[mg]

Richard wrote:

<p>

"Some great movie critics have no idea how to make a movie and never will. Some of the best art critics have never lifted a paint brush or done a sculpture, and never will. Just knowing how to take a photo does not mean one knows how to critique other's photography, even if they are good photographers."

<p>

Of course this is right, Richard. And Philip, I have great examples of great critiques from people with no portfolio uploaded. BUT it doesn't make your initial post any less valid. I don't see why all the people with 0 uploads would be treated the same way. Some are productive, and some are destructive. The challenge is to find the way to keep the productive ones and to limit somehow the impact of the others. The new rating system should help in that sense, but other things can be done. I am currently trying to find out WHAT EXACTLY with a few other members, and all suggestions are welcome. If anyone is interested in this, feel free to e-mail me. For information, I have seen one of the best glamour photos on this site rated a 1/1 with an absolutely rude comment. The photographer appears to have given up on photo.net, whereas I read his critiques, and they were really good. A loss for all of us if he doesn't come back. If you have time, have a look at the fate of Janko Furlan on this site. Imo, a really great photographer who was burried alive under tons of abusive ratings. Tony Dummett is another pretty obvious example. We can't afford to ignore the loss of the contributions of such people imho.

<p>

Eric wrote:

<p>

Just ignore the comments or ratings that you do not agree with

<p>

Sorry, but this is clearly not a sufficient advice in a system where visibility of your image is determined by the first 6 ratings you receive. If I get a 3 or a 2 rating once my image is already visible in the top-pages, I look for a comment. If there's no comment, I click on the rater's name to get an idea of who he is and how he rates. I often check his comments on other works from other photographers, and I don't mind the rating all that much if I can find any sort of indication of whom it comes from. But if a person with no portfolio, no comments, and an ID created recently gives an upload of mine a 2 or a 3, then I immediately suspect something fishy, and the fact is: I can't really ignore this rating IF IT IS ONE OF THE FIRST 6, simply because it has ruined all hopes for me to get later valuable feedback from others WHO WOULD HAVE WRITTEN SOMETHING. So, what I propose is this: people with no portfolio (and there would be a few other conditions here) should not be able to rate pictures below 4 UNTIL THEY APPEAR IN THE TOP-RATED PAGES. Or something along that line. I am actually very concerned by the question Philip Turner raised here, and I am preparing to post soon the result of a collective study on how to solve all abuse problems on PN. It is always easier to say that there are no solutions to a problem rather than trying to find if there are any. When I play a chess game, I wait till the game has ended to know whether I win or lose - meanwhile I think, and I try my best.

<p>

My proposal needs more homework, but stay tuned. We will need your contribution again soon in another thread on this and other topics related to abuse. And if you want to help out with your thoughts before that, just say so, and welcome ! Regards.