ronaldcoul Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I had 25 people rate my photo Called Eagle Owl The Average was 6.20.How can I be dropped to 6.11 with one rating.Is this another revenge rating?.Sorry to be a pain,but it all seems a waste of time putting work in for people to get their revenge on me for a unknown reason.There must be a better way to receive ratings.Ron Coulter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 <p>Someone may not have liked your photo and rated it 1 bringing down the average. If you suspect revenge and have some sort of proof, you might want to contact Abuse@photo.net. Otherwise, I'd just chalk it up to taste. It's very rare that 100% of viewers like even the greatest photo. The fact that at least one person dislikes what you think is a good photo seems very realistic to me.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 <p>I don't see any particular weirdness in the ratings on that photo and they are all high to high average.There is no evidence of cheating.</p> <p>But in general, what Fred said is correct. People have different opinions on what makes a good photo. Accepting that is the key to participating in any ratings system. What is the point in asking for opinions if the only opinions one wants to accept those that match your own? In addition, we cannot force people to use the ratings scale in a particular way. A 5 means one thing to one person and another thing to another. </p> <p>It's just a fact of life, you will never be able to convince some people that good things are good and bad things are bad. Everyone has different feelings and opinions and when placed in the context of something like a ratings system, all those opinions are valid. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
color Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 <p>Ron,<br> I don't think that is mathmatically possible. If you had 25 rates with an average of 6.2 and one additional rating at 3, which as far as I know is the lowest rating that gets included in ratings (1s and 2s are rounded up to 3), the average would fall to 6.0769...<br> Several times I've seen my images' ratings drop as more people rate them. Images that start out with several 6s drop to around 5.5 for an average. It could be, but I don't think it's revenge, more likely as images get more exposure via high ratings they're seen and rated by people who otherwise wouldn't see or rate them because those come from people rating <br />"top rated" images.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 <p>Chuck, I could be mistaken but I think the rounding up to 3 is no longer the case. Since the rating system was changed to a one number rate instead of the previous, I believe now 1s and 2s actually count as 1s and 2s. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. </p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 <blockquote> <p><em>"I don't think that is mathematically possible. If you had 25 rates with an average of 6.2 and one additional rating at 3..."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>AFAIK, ratings are displayed (and I presume the average is updated) in groups of 5 (first update) and then 3 (or 4?). Therefore it wasn't one rating that presumably brought the average down <strong>slightly</strong>, but several.<br /> -</p> <blockquote> <p><em>"Sorry to be a pain,but it all seems a waste of time putting work in for people to get their revenge on me for a unknown reason."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>To be a bit blunt (in the nicest possible way), if you get worked up about <strong>one</strong> rating out of a group of <strong>25+</strong> that drops the cumulative average by 0.09 on a photo with an average score of over 6.0, then the ratings submission feature of photo.net may not be for you. Not everyone thinks you are perfect. ;-)</p> <p>I had a look at your photo. It is a very nice photograph, but I can see why not everyone is going to give it a 6 or 7.</p> <p>Your comment that this is somehow <em>"revenge on me for a unknown reason"</em> seems a little bit hypocritical coming from someone who has to date given 24 - 1's, 210 - 2's and 645 - 3's to other photographer's work without comments justifying those low ratings.<br /> -</p> <blockquote> <p><em>There must be a better way to receive ratings.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, show it only to your friends. ;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwtphoto Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 <p>25 @ 6.2 =155. add a rating of 4 then you get 159/26 = 6.11. Getting a four is hardly a revenge rating imho.</p> <p>the owl shot is a 6 or 7 in my opinion - well done.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LenMarriott Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 <h1>Ron, Michael makes a valid point re: your rating rack record. That said, I usually neither rate nor solicit ratings but in this case I'll make an exception. 7! Best, LM.</h1> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
color Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 <p>Considering the number of 3s, 2s and 1s you've given I wouldn't be surprised if someone would want to "revenge rate" something you've done, but there's no way you could be identified for your low ratings. As far as I know it's only possible to see if someone rated an image at below 6, or 6, or 7 and even then it takes a minimum of 5 rates to see the list of folks who rated an image. So even if someone wanted to take revenge for a low rate they'd have to do it to everyone who gave them a below 6 rate to be sure to "get" the "culprit". <br> It would be nice if you'd try to help the people whose work you rate as poor by offering some constructive criticism once in a while, which apparently you do not.<br> I took at look at your work BTW. Very nice.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronaldcoul Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 Many thanks for all your comments and time.I have already had somebody give a revenge rating and he sent me a e/mail to say he received a low raring from me . The low ratings given,when I started with photo.net when hundeds of photo,s were pushed through and I was rating all of them.I now only rate 6 or 7 so that I dont receive revenge ratings. Constructive criticism was mentioned,nobody on the site mentions faults.They all encourage the photographer.It would GREAT if we could learn from other people. Many thanks Ron Coulter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthea50 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 <p>For what it's worth, I know plenty of people who give both pros and cons when critiquing, as do i ;)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmccracken Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 <p>So you only rate 6 or 7 because you don't want low ratings on your own photos. Fantastic!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 "I now only rate 6 or 7 so that I dont receive revenge ratings." In that case, how could the rating that destroyed your average have been a case of revenge? Perhaps you should add a note to each rating request explaining that you only give 6s and 7s and that you expect the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 <p>This thread just about sums up the PN rating system, doesn't it? AMAZING!</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimadams Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 <p><em><strong>"I now only rate 6 or 7 so that I dont receive revenge ratings."</strong></em><br> <br /> No, seriously?<strong></strong><em><strong><br /></strong></em><br /> <em><strong><br /></strong></em></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaellinder Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 <p>Although I have had to battle my own demons regarding ratings, I can't conceive of revenge as a motive for a low rating on a photograph. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
museebfoto Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 <p dir="LTR">I rarely rated below 5 ( even for those who always rated at low ), not because I don't want a low ratings on my own photos, but because I have just rated what I liked and skipped the others.</p> <p dir="LTR">As I think, " the low rating" it may need critique and clarify, passing through has the same connotation but it doesn't require clarification</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now