Ratings

[carashilaire]

<p>Ratings systems anywhere/on any site are tricky because they assume the best from people. As we work through the redesign, it is a good time to think of updating things like this if they aren't working or if they are causing such frustration. Sadly, there will always be flaws with ratings because they are subjective.</p>

<p>However, an idea just popped into my head after reading Glenn's note on focusing on solutions/ideas to make it better. Have you ever taken a survey where if you answer "no" you are required to write "why" before proceeding? That concept could possible work here and it would be good to know what you all think of it. If someone rates a photo below, say, a 4 - they could be required to say why before saving/submitting. That would ensure the photographer understands low ratings and it could discourage retaliation or just willy nilly giving out low ratings. After all, the thing that I think makes pnet stand apart is the critique factor - being able to help someone improve rather than just saying "nice picture" like Flickr for ex. ��</p>

<p>The above suggestion is just one idea to start a more positive thread of solutions and ideas. If you don't want to include your idea or thoughts on my idea here publicly, we'll be sending a survey very soon as we plan the redesign. You can include your thoughts privately and anonymously there about the ratings system. Just make sure you are signed up for the photo.net newsletter and you'll be getting the survey via email.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I started a new thread based on Glenn's and Cara's suggestions:</p>

<p><a href="/site-help-forum/00byBZ">HERE</a></p>

[David_Cavan]

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

<p>I have to say that I disagree with this opinion, entirely. I've spent many hours on this site over the past 5 years, and continue to do so. I've spent maybe a few minutes on the rating pages, and found the process to be arbitrary and capricious, to borrow a phrase. If it went away completely I'd find Photo.Net to continue to be a very useful website for my purposes.</p>

<p>Having said all of that, I appreciate that it matters to many others, and having read the start of Fred's parallel thread I might actually consider getting engaged in the rating process under some of his ideas - I am interested in feedback, and don't really care if I get low ratings.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Plenty of folks enjoy the ratings. It's an important asset to their interaction with and enjoyment of photo.net and a whole 'nuther subculture of photo.net members whom we seldom see in the discussion forums. It would be a mistake to dump the ratings altogether. </p>

<p>But, as I've mentioned before and again in the conversation Fred initiated, I believe the ELOgrade system might resolve most of the perceptions that the ratings system is somehow unfair.</p>

[mike dixon]

<i>If someone rates a photo below, say, a 4 - they could be required to say why before saving/submitting. That would ensure the photographer understands low ratings and it could discourage retaliation or just willy nilly giving out low ratings.</i><P>

Years ago, that system was put into place (low ratings had to be accompanied by an explanation). The result: There were more people infuriated by the explanations for low ratings than by the ratings themselves. It led to <b>more</b> retaliation and abuse.

[Mattman944]

<p><em> If a member has NO photos he (she) is NOT a photographer.</em><br>

<br>

Since this was directed at me, I am compelled to respond. I only have one image for rating (my "trademark" image that always appears at the bottom of threads), but I DO HAVE OTHER PHOTOS. True, my portfolio was a little skimpy, I recently added more. <br>

<br>

I <em>am</em> an accomplished photographer and an experienced judge, not some hack randomly throwing out ratings. My ratings are tough, but similar to 3 other people contributing to this thread (see the graph). I thought I was doing people a favor by rating their images, don't people often complain that they don't get enough ratings?<br>

<br>

Why are you so anxious for me to have more images to rate? The only reason I can think of is not nice. <br>

<br>

I am not shooting a lot right now because of personal issues, but if I do want feedback, there are better venues for me to get feedback. The one-line fluff comments you get here can be encouraging, but rarely helpful. <br>

<br>

I have given hundreds of detailed critiques on another site, in far more detail than the typical comment here. Hopefully, the changes being discussed will make this my preferred critique site, it is already my preferred site for forums.</p>

[tsappas]

<p>Matthew. That comment was Not directed at you,you have photos in your portfolio and you are a subscriber,It was directed to the management for allowing fly-by raters with free accounts , no photos ,no comments to interfere with the rating system.Those raters were appearing almost every other day,some of the photos i had to post and delete several times trying to avoid them.I was't the only one,the absence of a huge number of regulars photographers proves that.At one point it was so regular i thought the competitors found a vulnerability in PN and were doing it to shut the site down .There is more to tell you, i am sending you a personal message,check your personal messages</p>