Ratings

[kezia]

I have been thinking about why I find the ratings system so

difficult. It is because there is a wide range of technical expertise

on photonet. This means that when faced with yet another photograph

of the same old landscape with the same old velvia colours, which is

nevertheless technically perfect and beautifully scanned and

presented, I'm forced to make a choice I don't like making - I'm

forced to give it a six or seven for originality, when I should be

giving it a one or two. Why? Because if I give it a one or two the

photo will end up with an average rating of three or four, leaving me

with only ones and twos to give to the less technically proficient

photos that might nevertheless have other qualities that I like. I

feel that if you are going to have ratings then you should have three

categories, the third category being for technical proficiency. That

will allow me to give the sixes and sevens for technical merit to

the 'professional' quality photos, and still give the ones and twos

for originality that they often deserve. I know that on the surface

it seems to be making the ratings system even more complicated, but

overall I think it would simplify and clarify it.

[jim schwaiger]

I think we should simply eliminate the categories and rate each image on how good it is overall. Originality and aesthetics are not used consistantly amoung the raters anyway and even the management realizes this. I think there is a consesus that it needs to change, but I'm not sure what their plans are.

 

Taken to the extreme, you could envision a rating system with several categories, but my question is will images that score well in all categories be better than images that score poorly in one or two? Some great photos are poor from a technical sense, or the lighting is poor, or the composition is a bit off, or they are creative ways to show a very tired subject...

[solja]

I'd like to see the 'originality' ratings category completely eliminated. As has been said by others, a majority of work uploaded cannot be defined as original! What's out there that hasn't been photographed before?

<p>

I think having a single category, simply 'aesthetics', would greatly simplify the rating system and base the ratings solely on how the photo strikes you overall, not on how original it may be to YOU, or how technically proficient it may be to YOU, or how correct the composition seems to YOU. Since there are people here of so widely varying backgrounds and experience, what is original to one person may seem mundane to another; what is technically poor to one person may seem utterly creative to another. Wrapping it into one category makes an experienced rater choose, "Well, yeah it's a bit lacking technically, but the color variation is amazing!" or "It's not the most original subject, but the photographer really nailed the composition," and rate accordingly, or a novice rater can simply decide if they like the photo and rate accordingly, without taking any technical details into consideration. You'll still get some wildly varying ratings depending on the background of the rater, but you'll no longer have to justify why you're photo is 'original'.

<p>

Anyway, just my 2-cents worth...

[mstrada]

I would also vote for eliminating the "originality" rating. It's pretty meaningless, and people just use it as a proxy for overall quality anyway. (Although I rarely rate photos anymore -- in part because of silliness like this -- most of the past ratings I've given have been identical in aesthetics and originality because I can't figure out how to parse them out fairly.)

 

Not only is it senseless and impossible to apply, but it assumes that every shot is intended to be original. On the contrary, for the vast majority here, whether consciously or not, our goal is to ape things we've seen done elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with a boat in silhouette in front of a sunset, or a flower with a bee on it, or a shot of African women with buckets on their heads and colorful robes, or a gritty Tri-X shot of a panhandler. Those are all cliches for a reason: they make good photos (or at least are more likely to do so than most other photographic ideas in the world). But few are original. The people who can generate truly original renditions of those things should be busy getting their pictures published, not uploading crappy JPEGS to photo.net.

[root]

There are consequences to your ratings behavior. If you rate an

image 5/5 or higher you are promoting it to the top pages and

saying to the community, "you should take a look at this." If you

rate it 4/4 or lower, especially in the first six ratings, you are

saying, "this image does not deserve to have further exposure on

this site. Send it back to obscurity inb the maker's portfolio."

 

If you think of your photo critique behavior as a service to the

photo.net community and, especially, the maker, then take a long

hard look at it in large size and write a paragraph telling everyone

what attracts you to the image, good or bad. If everyone who

participated in the photocritique forum took this approach, the

number of interesting images uploaded would increase

dramatically as more poeple recognized that it was serving the

purpose for which it was intended, not this silly ego game which

is so evident to even the most casual observer. . . . . . .

[nelson_leonard_photography]

The numeric "Ratings System" should be removed completely if there is no supporting statements to ratings in the comment section. Ratings alone are nothing more than the equivalent of saying pretty, nice, great, good, bad or OK.

 

The sole purpose of a "Critique" should be to give valuable and objective opinions to the Photographer while the "Ratings" support your statements. Critiques generally have an established criteria of questions for commenting and judging other's photographs. Such as: What you like and/or don't and why? How do feel about the overall composition and aesthetics? What would you do differently to improve the photograph? Most importantly, there is an etiquette of manners and tactfulness. These are just a few examples but do you see how much more this can be an enriching learning experience?

 

What benefit do you receive when someone just rates your photographs without a comment? This is an observation but have noticed many who rate alot of photos have none of their own uploaded? Wouldn't you like to see their photographs to consider the source of the ratings? Have you noticed many have given hundreds sometimes thousands of ratings with only a handful of comments attached? What is your opinion about this?

 

I'm not here to tell people how to spend their time but in my book it's a total waste. I invite anyones comments.

 

Nelson

[root]

Here's another statistic of dubious value - 90% of the people on this

site agree with 90% of what you've said. So why is the system in

place? . . . . because the 'highest rated" pages use this data to

determine the most popular images. If you (and others) never visit

those pages, then your points are 100% valid. Problem is they're very

popular, according to the folks in a position to measure these things.

. .

[nelson_leonard_photography]

Carl,

 

My point is you can still have the "highest rated" and

"most popular" images but with comments. So why do people waste their time rating any images at all unless there're going to give it a top mark? Why have a scale from 1-7 when a scale of 6.0 to 7.0 would serve the purpose for top rated?

 

Many of the folks here are new to photography and still learning. Why do some go through and slam a two or three on photos without any explanation or comment? Except to say... If there is nothing positive to say, leave it blank and don't rate it but I think this defeats the entire purpose of uploading photos. Have comments added to the ratings system.

 

Nelson

[root]

You'll get no argument from me. The people who do what you

discribe are mostly either new to the site and really seem to think

of this as a game . . . . or sometimes these are retaliation rates

for down rating their favorite.

 

The problem with requiring comments is that it's too easy to

subvert the system, ie comment, rate, delete comment . . .

 

The solution is to set up alternative ways of viewing and

critiquing images so that the top pages and all its' abuses will

be less attractive. . . . .

[bronicasaurus]

Nelson, I agree. I ignore the ratings & post for the comments - a few numerical ratings without comments won't help me improve my photos (most members aren't popular enough to get a quantity of views/votes sufficient to achieve a meaningful average). Numerical ratings say more about the person rating than about the photo. Funny how some of the lowest ratings come from members w/no shared photos or (worse) really awful photos - many of these armchair photographers hand out dozens of only-below-average votes at a sitting, & only rate the less popular photogs. Personally I'd prefer a simple "like/don't like" (pass/fail) voting system - and views without votes should automatically be considered an average vote.

[kezia]

There is no way of ensuring a meaningful critique just by making a comment compulsory. Many people would just type in good or fair and it would still not be meaningful. I think it is important to help newcomers like me realize that if they just put their photos up for critique they are probably going to be disappointed because they will be lucky to get even one comment -- that really isn't what the photo critique system is for; it is simply a way of filtering out the bad photos in order to provide good photos for the high-rated pages. The system really isn't designed for learning now that it is so big and I don't really know why people keep putting photos up for critique. I rarely do these days - the photos in my folders are there for two reasons: 1/ for my family abroad to enjoy; 2/ to force me to be more self-critical since in order to add a photo I have to delete one -- it's a game I play in my attempts to improve. I would join a critique circle but when I had a look I got the impression that very few have any activity going on, which is puzzling when so many people here complain about the lack of meaningful critiques of their photos. I am surprised because for me comments are crucial and they are very rare in the main critique section.

 

So if the ratings on the main critique pages are simply a filter for the high-rated pages then I think a three-part rating makes sense because once people feel free to give the low ratings for originality that many of the top photos deserve I think it might broaden the types of photos that get into the top pages. Alternatively have just one qustion to answer - does it deserve to go in the top pages, yes or no. That would at least be honest and consistent with the true purpose of ratings.

[root]

Kezia, here's the big question. Would you pay $25 to become a patron

if there was a bonafide forum for critquing images? Brian is looking

for ways to raise money to keep this site solvent. His perception is

that the people who want critiques don't stick around very long and

are less inclined to support the site than others who log on for other

reasons. .

[bronicasaurus]

I would... but only if the judges were qualified professionals & not art appreciation students assigned to rate 100 pics for their weekly homework - get a professional panel & charge for their experience (there are certainly enough here among us). I gotta say, though, PN members have more integrity about ratings than many other sites (like PS, where score whores place links to their own pics in their comments & reduce their generic "3-thumbs-up" ratings if you don't scratch back).

[root]

I'm not proposing pay for critiques, although others have made that

proposal. I'm suggesting that the critique circles will not be

maintained unless more members who value them support the site by

paying $25 like so many others who get no direct services.

 

Photo.net is the only site I'm aware of where comments on an image

appear as a sequencial thread, ie a discussion. Enhance this feature

and the checks will come rolling in. Curbing some of the current

excesses, like unlimited uploads per time period, is a necessary

sacrifice to make it work. .