Ratings

[ronaldcoul]

My photo has been submitted in the last 3day's (Golden Eagle).by ron coulter The rating was 6.20 HOW in 1

vote was it taken down to 6.00 I was really proud , the scores were 6 &7s..Is this retalliation or just bad

photographers.I dont mind a poor score but this is something else.

Ron Coulter

[MichaelChang]

<p>If 10 raters average 6.2, and the 11th rater gives a rating of 4, then the average will be 6.0. </p>

<p>It's entirely possible that the 11th rater thought the photo was just slightly above average. </p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... the scores were 6 &7s"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And you know this for sure?</p>

<p>10 ratings, 6.2 average, 62 total<br>

[(7+4+5+7+7) + (6+7+5) + (7+7)] = 62<br>

Next person rates it a 4...<br>

(62+4)/11 = 6.0<br>

-</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I dont mind a poor score but..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>With all due respect, posting about a single rating that drops your average by 0.2 points to (gasp!) 6.0, and asking if it's because of "bad photographers" or "retaliation" would seem to suggest otherwise.</p>

<p>Stop obsessing about individual ratings for your own sanity. It's a nice photo. Be proud of it. What does it really matter if someone else you don't even know thinks it's only "average".</p>

[Bill C]

<p>I feel for you. Just be glad that this guy didn't cruise by your image: <a href="/photodb/user-ratings?user_id=242318">http://www.photo.net/photodb/user-ratings?user_id=242318</a></p>

[tsappas]

Ron,this is a free for ALL site,you are lucky you did't get an 1.There is no rating algorithm.Any one as long as he (she) registers can give as many ratings as they like.The previous administration always told us that if we did't like the ratings we shoul'd submit photos for ratings.Unfortunately most of the Good photographers did that and left for other sites.The rating forum sometimes drops to 40-50 photos with a handful of ratings on each photo.I remember this site been very friendly with good photos getting 60 ratings and 50 comments.Very hard to tell what the future will bring to PN.

[Mattman944]

<p>Besides meanness, jealousy, and stupidity; another common reason I see for low ratings: someone assumes an image is heavily manipulated, and doesn't believe in manipulation. I'm not saying that this one is, but if it isn't you should add your own comment stating it isn't so people won't assume wrong.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ron, it is more than a bit harsh to say people are bad photographers because they wouldn't rate your photo with a 6 or 7. Nobody is obliged to like your photo. People have different tastes, and can express that. That doesn't make them better or worse photographers, that just makes them people with a different taste.</p>

<p>So, lighten up. A 6 is still a high score. Instead of lamenting the 3,22% decrease, enjoy that it's still among the 10% highest rated photos these days.</p>

[tsappas]

<p>Matthew<br>

You have only one photo with ratings.How did you rate 7000 photos with 3s and 4s ? Were they all heavily manipulated ? Or there was another reason.Did you FIND only 7 photos unmanipulated and good enough to give them a 7 ?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Besides meanness, jealousy, and stupidity; another common reason I see for low ratings: someone assumes an image is heavily manipulated, and doesn't believe in manipulation."</em></p>

<p>Besides meanness, jealousy, stupidity, and manipulation, a reason another photographer might rate your photo with a low number is that he thinks it isn't that good or could be improved significantly. To a great extent, this is a learning site. Learning usually means there's room for improvement. Why not welcome a message that you can improve rather than assume the jealousy or stupidity of the one letting you know that? We can take things constructively or not. The choice is ours.</p>

<p>It's interesting that the question usually posed in these cases is "How could someone rate my photo low when so many others rated it high?" An alternative question would be, "Can anyone here tell me what about my photo might deserve a low rate and how could my photo be improved?" One might even think that to themselves, study their own photo upon seeing a low rate, and really work hard to see where improvements could be made that might make it a better photo or might lead to a better photo next time.</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>@harry: <strong>I do not downgrade for manipulation, you are making a bad assumption.</strong> I manipulate many of my shots and I appreciate creative manipulation. But, I know for sure that some people will downgrade manipulated shots. Admittedly, the evidence is not from this site, but I have seen judges admit strong bias against manipulates shots in other venues.</p>

<p>As for my average rating, I grade on a bell-curve. Most are in the mid-range, very few are 7, very few are 1. There are thousands of poor and mediocre images out there. My rating is usually close to the average.</p>

<p>I don't selectively rate only good images. When I am in the mood to rate, I rate a large number, only skipping some if I feel that a person asked for too many ratings. If someone selectively rates only good images, their average will be higher.</p>

<p>The Eagle is excellent, I would give it a strong 6, maybe a 7. But, it looks almost too good to be real, so I could see how someone could think it was manipulated. (and like I already said, that is NOT bad IMO)</p>

<p> </p>

[tsappas]

<p>To matthew. You posted 1 photo for rating,you rated 12500 photos and made 8 comments.The lack of comments is the most worrying thing.How come and you have nothing to say with words?Comments are hard work,clicking away in numbers is the easy solution (thinking most of the time you are anonymous). Why don't you go out spend some of your time taking photos.post them and see what the members say and what rates you get.As for the so famous average BELL,Josh swore by it and got the sack.A ratings algorithm must be introduced to stop members like you with NO other contribution except clicking away on numbers from participating.</p>

[mike dixon]

Harry, photo.net users are welcome to rate (or not rate) as many photos as they like and to make (or not make) as many comments as they want. There is no requirement for posting photos in order to participate in the rating system. <P>

 

The idea that people have to be great photographers themselves in order to provide useful feedback is misguided. It doesn't require any knowledge of how to operate a camera in order to judge whether an image makes an impact or communicates a feeling or idea. The overwhelming majority of judgements made about photos are made by non-photographers. In general, I find that feedback from non-photographers is much more valuable than that from photographers.<P>

[gungajim]

<p>Ron,<br>

I surprised to see you complaining about a low rating when you dish out so many yourself. GJ</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>There are many legitimate reasons why a photo.netter might rate a photo lower than the photographer believes is deserved or appropriate.</p>

<p>Bird photography is not only extremely common but also extremely competitive. It demands high skill, access, travel, and, in most cases, high tech to do it well nowadays. Discerning viewers see literally hundreds of top notch bird photos every month, week or even every day. It takes something really unusual or special to rise above a 5, which is above average but not at all bad or inferior. You might believe your photo is incredible. Others who do enjoy great bird photography may see it as merely average or above average.</p>

<p>Also, many photo.netters use the "Rate All" queue. This presents photos more or less randomly, without regard to the photographer's selected category, genre or niche. You may have folks giving ratings who love photos of nudes and gals in bikinis but find birds, bugs and blossoms tedious and trite. There's no way to please every viewer and no way to confine them to rating only the categories that actually interest them or in which they have expertise. It's a free for all and you take what you can get. Usually we're lucky to get enough ratings to hit the TRP at all, unless you cultivate a following of like minded photographers.</p>

<p>For another thing (and this is just a wild guess), you submitted that particular photo for ratings/critiques in the Nature rather than Birds category. Perhaps a member who is picky about the categories believed the photo should have been properly submitted under the Birds category. </p>

<p>Seems excessive? Not necessarily. I tend to be very picky about photos miscategorized as photojournalism, which is a very narrow niche. Years ago some mate-raters would attempt to game the system by submitting all of their photos to the News/Journalism queue, knowing that particular category had very little activity. That way they could quickly and easily find each others photos via the anonymous "Rate Photos" queue and give each other the perfect scores they believed they each deserved. They'd confirm the deal by posting <a href="https://encrypted.google.com/#q=%227%2F7+anon%22+site:photo.net">"7/7 anon"</a> as a critique. Whenever I found excessively HDR'd or Photoshopped abominations (strictly forbidden by most journalistic outlets), or clearly miscategorized photos I'd rate them 3 or lower along with a note reminding the photographer to categorize their photos of bikinis, birds, bugs, blossoms, and beasts appropriately.</p>

<p>I'm not quite as picky about the Street and Documentary categories, but will occasionally downrate photos that clearly don't belong, especially if the photographer appears to be miscategorizing photos deliberately to gain an edge or just for trolling. Yes, hard to believe, but a few years ago there was a member who thought it was cute to post nudes in the family-friendly queues.</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>Bell curves are natural. Here are normalized graphs of myself and 3 other people contributing to this thread. These are all people who have rated a lot of images, and are probably not doing a lot of selective rating.</p>

<p>I choose to post and critique images in other venues where honesty is more accepted.</p><div></div>

[MichaelChang]

<p>The problem with curve grading is that ratings are assigned to fit a predetermined distribution - a prolific rater's psychology will auto-adjust his rating to achieve that curve.</p>

<p>Another problem is that ratings are subjectively made often with no analysis whatsoever. It's nearly equivalent to grading attractiveness of people in a slideshow with a two second glance.</p>

<p>It's valid to the rater, but in actuality quite meaningless. <br>

</p>

 

[tsappas]

To Mike Dixon. " THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR POSTING PHOTOS IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RATING SYSTEM".Above the logo of PHOTO.NET on every page it states "A SITE FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS BY PHOTOGRAPHERS". If a member ha NO photos he (she) is NOT a photographer.The management should change that to "THIS SITE IS FREE FOR ALL".And lastly .where do you get useful feedback by non photographers,here on this site,another site or asking random people in the local park.If is another site or the park what has to do with this thread.Remember this SITE IS FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS BY PHOTOGRAPHERS

[mike dixon]

<i>It's valid to the rater, but in actuality quite meaningless. </i><P>

If there's one thing I've learned in all these discussion about ratings, it's this: High ratings are deeply-meaningful affirmations of the photographer's skill and vision, but low ratings are meaningless, mean-spirited attacks by talentless hacks which should be ignored.

[mike dixon]

<i>If a member ha NO photos he (she) is NOT a photographer.</i><P>

There is difference between "having no photos" and "having no photos uploaded to a photo.net portfolio" or "having no photos submitted for ratings."<p>

<i>And lastly .where do you get useful feedback by non photographers,here on this site,another site or asking random people in the local park.If is another site or the park what has to do with this thread.</i><P>

I get useful feedback from photo editors, gallery owners, people who've seen my work in magazines, people who've seen my work on other website, and people I've photographed. I've never gotten feedback by asking random people in the local park, because I don't ask random people in the park what they think of my work (though I would consider their opinions valid). What does it have to do with this thread? You seemed quite willing to tell Matthew what he had to do in order to offer valid ratings--I was offering the counterpoint that you don't actually have to do photography to offer useful feedback about photos.<P>

As an aside: When you speak with people face-to-face, do you tend to yell at them, boss them around, and behave so rudely? If not, why do you think that it's acceptable here?

[tsappas]

<p>Mike sorry if i came across rude or abrupt,it's probably my writing style.Yes, i would like to know the difference between" NO PHOTOS" and" NO PHOTOS UPLOADED TO THE PORTFOLIO".As i am writing this there are 57 photos in the rating forum and 35 members logged in (is a site with that many photos a good site for new members to join?).The point i am trying to make is how much damage the free for all rating system is doing to the site.The site is unfriendly,new members are posting a couple of photos and then disappear,older members don't post ,rate or comment.The new management are making efforts to resurrect the site,The FOLLOW move is quite radical for this site(the previous administration made mate-rating a taboo and members are reluctant probably to accept it).The follow system is used with great success on most photo sites.The "NO PHOTOS " "NO PARTICIPATION" encourages cheating and abuse.It's about time for the management to start thinking about a new rating system,THANKS</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"As i am writing this there are 57 photos in the rating forum and 35 members logged in "</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Harry, that number isn't actually the number of members logged in, but logged-in members who have requested a page in the last 10 minutes. Plenty of members (and non-members) browse this site without logging in unless they need to. </p>

[tsappas]

<p>Hi Michael.thanks for the information.The most important of the 2 is the rating forum.The rating forum is the flagship of the site,if that diminishes that will be the end of the site.More than 57 photos go into the upcoming forum of 500PX in 1 hour or less (and photos of excellent quality),and that's a site that is not relying on advertising or has good comment or is known to be very friendly.The members that post in the rating forum here at PN are mainly subscribers.Photo .net is a business and needs subscribers.The present state of the site i don't think is very appealing to future subscribers.I love Photo.net,it's the only site with good interaction and information but i can't see how it can survive at it's present state.Thanks</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>@harry<br>

<em>The "NO PHOTOS " "NO PARTICIPATION" encourages cheating and abuse. It's about time for the management to start thinking about a new rating system.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Also realize that a judge may be more honest if people cannot retaliate against them. So, the best system might be a group of experienced judges without anything at stake. </p>

<p>And I don't know why this thread became an attack on me. I offered an additional reason why someone might rate the Eagle low (I don't think it is a valid reason). Now I am accused of unfairly rating images. I quickly found 3 other people who rate almost identical to me, see the graph. I think I deserve an apology.</p>

<p>And I checked my previous ratings, I have never rated any of yours, so relax. I will attempt to avoid rating your images in the future. Assuming that I ever rate again, this experience has left a bad taste in my mouth.</p>

<p>My contributions to this site are primarily in the forums. I enjoy helping people and often learn something in the process.</p>

 

[G-P]

<p>Matthew, my apologies I should have hopped in here sooner. This thread should not have become an attack on you or your activity on photo.net. The reality of it is any rating system will create some level of friction within the community. When I go to my boss, I don't present him only problems, I present problems with proposed solutions and we discuss together what we feel is the best way to address the problem. I would rather see a healthy discussion on the subject of what the ratings system could be in the future rather than what it is now. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>The rating forum is the flagship of the site,if that diminishes that will be the end of the site.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? I sure hope not, I find the ratings game among the least useful features - as shown by this thread. First of all the completely wrong assumption that one needs to have photos him/herself to be able to rate the photos of others, and second that giving specific ratings would bear any significance towards the skills of who did the rating. Lecturing others when and how you can pass a single digit to others. Really, what is this worked-up attitude about anyway? Can you just stop for a second and consider what a rating is? A single digit between 1 and 7 to tell the artist how much you liked the photo - with no clear indications why you like it, what you think the artist did right or wrong. Just a digit. How much feedback is that, how much interaction is it, how much do you learn from seeing "4.83 / 25 ratings"?</p>

<p>I won't say the site does not need ratings at all, but whatever rating system you think of, critiques are in the end much more of a learning tool, build much more community interaction and community feel and require you to order your ideas about a photo much more, than clicking a single digit. Yes, that will gives a lower quantity of clicks: it's easy to rate 200 photos in one day, and 200 critiques in one day is not going to happen. But it really is quality that counts, not quantity. It's quality of what we show and share that will make people subscribe and come back.</p>