Top rated photos

[gungajim]

<p>On the top-rated photo pages by category - last 3 days - I see photos that have a sub 4.0 average rating and a bunch more at 4.0 or just above on most of the TRP pages. It seems that there should be a bit stricter standard for getting on a TRP page - say, 4.5 or higher. Any thoughts?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Hmm. Some of my best pictures are low-rated (in my opinion).</p>

<p>If people are rating 'hard' then whatever floats to the top is still "top rated" even if all the ratings are low. I have no idea what the actual algorithm for picking 'top-rated' is, but surely it is based on the actual ratings being given.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king, etc. If only a handful of very high ratings are given out (and shouldn't they be?), then it really is a battle among the just-above-average ratings. Which makes sense.</p>

[gungajim]

<p>JDM, I do agree that people are rating 'harder' these days and, in general, it has been a good development.<br>

Matt, I can buy the just-above-average argument but not convinced that it works for below average if we are talking about top rated images. Whenever I post an image that gets a sub 4 average, it almost always turns out that there was a significant flaw in the image that I had refused to acknowledge or was too blind to see. I suppose it becomes a question of whether we want subpar images displayed on a 'top-rated' page. Maybe we need a Rotten Cucumber page that displays the 3.5's to 3.99's!</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>How do you rate a photo?</p>

<p>And how does one see the ratings of a photo?</p>

[gungajim]

<p>Richard,<br>

Click on Gallery or Sharing Tab at top of page, then click on Rate Photos in the dropdown. When you view an individual images, click on Details tab to see ratings for the image. Not all photos will have ratings - only if the poster requests them. When viewing an entire folder of thumbnails in someone's portfolio, click on Show Details and ratings will appear under each image. GJ</p>

[hugh_hill]

<p>Hello Jim,</p>

<p>In truth I believe that all ratings should be barred unless accompanied by a comment/criticism...It just does not make any sense to see a 7, 6, 5, , ,2, or a 1 without an exclamation of a why?<br>

I am with you that ratings should be tougher but we will never be able to get to the top of the crazy 'Mate Rating' syndicates here or all the little mafias with the 'you are either with us or else' attitudes thus resulting in 'Rate Haters' I guess we just have to ignore the systems and focus on our own work with a true heart and if we have to give then give from there,,,,but always with the explanation of a why!<br>

I wont allow rating of my images but just ask for a comment, and guess what? Almost no one ever does!</p>

<p>Lovely to see you still around.</p>

 

[lynnthomas]

I used to ask for ratings and was confused by the results. I stopped asking altogether instead I submit for

critique and ask (sincerely) if my photo can be improved and if so…how? Yes I do enjoy the compliments

some of my stuff gets but I’m more interested in how to do better and ratings don’t do that. Getting a 4.0

without an explanation why is of no value. If I put something up for critique even if no one responds, is in

my opinion a much more fair approach.

[JDMvW]

<p>As I and others have confessed long ago, the reason we now have asked for ratings is not to collect ratings, but because we like to show off some of our pictures, banal as they may be, at the bottom of the forum pages - once that we knew that being listed for ratings was the prerequisite.</p>

<p>If you do this, you have to be fairly thick skinned. Regardless of what my own pictures deserve, I note that there are some people who are really very fine photographers indeed, and their ratings are often in the 4 to 5 range. It's a tough crowd, and as said, why not?</p>