Top rated photos

[gungajim]

<p>I often notice that when browsing a category of Top Rated Photos some photos will have a 'Not enough to count average yet' message in the photo's rating section. This seems a bit contradictory. Then again, life is full of contradictions. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I think the system still *technically* requires at least five ratings before the average is shown. But in actual practice, it seems to take only two or three ratings to get a photo onto the TRP - tho' usually buried in the back. But it still serves my purpose - getting the photo more visibility via the bottom of the discussion forum threads, which usually generates a few comments and critiques that are often more incisive and helpful than those I've received by submitting photos to the "Critique Forum".</p>

<p>So at this point the TRP and ratings serve two useful functions:</p>

<ol>

<li>The familiar popularity contest for folks who enjoy that.</li>

<li>Greater visibility for everyone who participates, regardless of the ratings, especially on the discussion forums.</li>

</ol>

<p>There really are two photo.nets -- the discussion forums and the photo comments/ratings activities -- and I'll bet a Venn diagram would reveal relatively little overlap, if we had the statistics. So the current ratings system actually helps encourage a bit of crossover.</p>

 

[tsappas]

<p>A photo needs 3 ratings to enter the forum and 5 ratings to show the average and the names of the raters,it should really read "Not enough to SHOW average yet". You are a very old member GJ, But lately there are so few ratings that made it very noticable </p>

[gungajim]

<p>Also, just noticed a Top Rated Photo that has an average rating of 2.71. I said this several months ago but will say it again that I think an image should have at least a 4.0 rating to show up on a TRP listing. If a photo doesn't earn a 4.0 average and garner at least 5 rates, it shouldn't show up on a list that has 'top rated' in its title. What I would like to see is a forum that displays photos by newer members, perhaps one forum for <30 day member, another for 30-90, 90-180, 180-1year. Maybe, another forum for older members who haven't posted for awhile. That would result in more visibility for new and evolving talent and you could then restore some minimal standards to TRP lists. Lex, sorry but I don't understand what you are saying 'But it still serves my purpose - getting the photo more visibility via the bottom of the discussion forum threads, which usually generates a few comments and critiques...'</p>

[western_isles]

Must say that I agree with GJ comments. If images are to be regarded as the best then they should in fact be so. I would be mortified if an average on an image I posted was 2 and would delete it. A rating of 4 could serve as benchmark for entry to the top rated section and possibly a section to rate new/novice members?

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Lex, sorry but I don't understand what you are saying 'But it still serves my purpose - getting the photo more visibility via the bottom of the discussion forum threads, which usually generates a few comments and critiques...'"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All photos submitted for ratings become part of a pool of photos randomly cycled and displayed at the bottoms of discussion forum threads, including this conversation. As of this writing, <a href="/photo/7158020"><strong>this photo</strong></a> of mine from 2008 appears at the bottom of this discussion thread. So does <a href="/photo/6929556"><strong>this photo</strong></a> of GungaJim's, and <a href="/photo/13226254"><strong>this photo</strong></a> of Harry's. If I refreshed the page, or looked back tomorrow, other photos would be presented, randomly cycled. The pool is selected from among the members who:</p>

<ol>

<li>Are participants in the thread being viewed.</li>

<li>Have submitted a photo or photos for ratings.</li>

</ol>

<p>It's a great opportunity for exposure and to generate comments from folks who happen to see the photos on the ends of discussion forum threads. Many of the most thoughtful and constructive critiques I've received were motivated this way.</p>

<p>I don't care what ratings I get. I don't take photos that would appeal to popular tastes anyway. There are no prizes or money to be won. It doesn't influence my choices in making or displaying photos. But I do appreciate the additional exposure and opportunities for feedback from folks who happen to see my photos at the bottoms of these conversations.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If a photo doesn't earn a 4.0 average and garner at least 5 rates, it shouldn't show up on a list that has 'top rated' in its title."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm dredging this up from my faulty memory banks, but as I recall...</p>

<p>One reason why the system was changed several years ago to allow photos with accumulated/mean/median/average ratings of only average (4) to above average (5) to appear on the TRP was to normalize the system and discourage incentives for abuses such as mate rating, or using sockpuppet accounts to boost ones own ratings.</p>

<p>Choosing among the various options on the TRP will also affect which photos appear most prominently:</p>

<ul>

<li>Photo category has the most pronounced effect. A photographer who consistently dominates a niche category, such as street photography, may not even make a blip on the screen when choosing the "All" and "All (no nudes)" viewing options. The "All" views tend to be dominated by color photos of wildlife, flowers, landscapes and pretty girls. That's been a consistent theme for the past decade.</li>

<li>The "Sort By" option has a significant effect. Try the various options and you'll see differences - sometimes dramatic, others subtle - in the order in which photos are presented on the TRP.</li>

</ul>

<p>So there is really no single "TRP". It's more like a television with many channels.</p>

<p>If you study the long history of the ratings systems and the many, many debates, disputes and complaints, a common theme was the perception that the system was always inherently unfair and favored only a handful of participants who regularly dominated the TRP, through various forms of gaming the system.</p>

<p>So the TRP was modified to give others an opportunity to have their photos appear on page 1 or 2 of the TRP, rather than being buried at the bottom, dozens of pages into the queue.</p>

<p>That goal was effectively accomplished.</p>

<p>One could argue that such a normalization system also rewards mediocrity and discourages excellence. Maybe. But the ratings system has never been anything more than a popularity contest anyway. There's never been any evidence that any popular or democratic vote ratings system, no matter how contrived, consistently promotes the best photography. The old system consistently promoted the highest rated photos to page one of the TRP.</p>

<p>But those weren't necessarily the "best" photos, since "best" is subjective. The highest rated photos tended - as they still do - to reflect fairly popular, common or trendy themes, subjects and editing processes. It didn't much matter whether the rating distinctions were nths of a degree between, say, 6.5 and 7, or between 5.5 and 6.3. The same types of photographs and the same handful of photographers tended to dominate the TRP.</p>

<p>Instead, the popular vote ratings system - in every variation - consistently promotes the photographs of those who are most effective at promoting themselves and their like-minded circles of acquaintances. Occasionally their photos also happen to be very good. Often excellent photos languish in the cellar because the photographers are not particularly effective at self promotion and social networking.</p>

<p>Such is life with any popular vote or simple democratic voting system. Photo.net's ratings system - in all its permutations - has always been a simple popularity contest, with all members of the website equally eligible to vote or rate.</p>

<p>That's one reason why representative systems tended to be more highly regarded throughout the past few centuries, whether in politics, legal courts or juried arts contests. Whether photography, art, music, movies, literature, you name it, most juried contests use a system of elected representatives or expert panels chosen by consensus or purely arbitrary means.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"I would be mortified if an average on an image I posted was 2 and would delete it."</em></p>

<p>Please . . . please . . . please . . . don't. Show it to me first! I'll probably like it, or at least find more potential in it than I usually do in the 6s and 7s in the top-rated photos queue, which I tend to dislike. The 2s and 3s is usually where the creative, quirky, personal, and soulful stuff is. </p>

<p>I've often said that I consider 3s and below on my photos in the PN ratings queue a badge of honor.</p>

<p>I think I'm with Lex, though. The only reason I still ask for ratings is so my photos will appear at the bottom of threads. I rarely remember to even look at my ratings anymore. I prefer to read and respond to the critiques I get.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

Incidentally, I just realized the mobile app doesn't show the photos at

the bottom of the discussion forum threads, so my explanation above may

not be clear to folks who only use the mobile app.

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"I think an image should have at least a 4.0 rating to show up on a TRP listing."</em></p>

<p>By the way, Jim, my post above is why I'd not like this idea. When I do look at the TRP, which is not that often, I tend to go to the low end to see the stuff I'm more likely to be interested in and more likely to want to comment on.</p>

<p>Let's even stipulate that the 2s and 3s are the images that are not very good (obviously an assumption I don't have), they would deserve as much visibility as the 6s and 7s since they would be the ones most likely to benefit from sincere and constructive critiques.</p>

<p>Because of these things, I'd like to see the listings stay as they are* and, instead of calling them the Top Rated Photos, maybe it could be called Photos By Ratings. </p>

<p>______________________________________</p>

<p>*Actually, I'd like to see the top-rated listings and the ratings system itself done away with, but that's not likely to happen, so I'm content to make the best of what it is.</p>

[gungajim]

<p>Lex, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I rarely receive a comment on a photo once it has been posted for 5 days or so. Those comments that I do receive on older photos seem to come from people who are browsing my portfolio and I am not convinced that many of them are getting to my portfolio via images appearing at the bottom of forums. Sophisticated site traffic pattern metrics would answer this question but I have this funny feeling that NameMedia would never pop for a sophisticated package. If indeed there is some meat among the lower rated photos why not gives us the capability to select and display them as a group. As mentioned above, also give us the capability to see photos submitted by new members. There is no need to contaminate groupings of TRPs when there are many other ways to get exposure for other categorizations. Despite all its failings, the rating system works as often as not. I have submitted two or three extensive suggestions over the last 5 years on how to remedy the ratings system in those instances when it doesn't work and I get the impression that it freaks out the staff because it would require some programming and changes in the way of looking at things. I continue to maintain a list of ideas of how to solve some of PN's problems but I am not about to spend several days putting together detailed specs when there is virtually no chance the ideas will be considered.<br>

A few months ago Cara gave a thoughtful response to some suggestions I made. However, she started off the response saying that there are only four people who work on the site full time. That declaration left me cold because I don't see any way four people (and an undetermined number of part-time volunteers) can implement meaningful and game-changing enhancements to the site. When a member submits an email to management, a message appears that says it may be awhile before you receive an answer because either Glenn or Cara review and answer every email. To me, this is an insane use of senior management resources. </p>

<address>Moreover, Cara and Glenn seem to be grasping for new ideas for content that will save the site. PN already has mountains of great content (photos and forum posts) that are provided for FREE to PN by all the talented members who contribute (sadly the number of contributors - especially good ones - has diminished substantially over the past 5 years). Nonetheless, there is still a lot of good content. The task of PN management should be to utilize all this free content more effectively rather than trying to come up with new content.</address><address> </address><address>But the real problem is not content or PN management; rather, it is PN ownership. PN would fare far better if it was owned by a company that had a vested interest in some aspect of photography. NameMedia is an advertising huckster that doesn't give a whit about photography. When I brought up the issue of NM during Josh's regime, he would always say that they didn't interfere in the management of PN. He was probably right. However, in not interfering, they are also not providing the resources needed for the long term success of the site.</address><address> </address><address>I know that this post probably sounds arrogant and vain but I am tired of providing so much content and seeing it so poorly utilized. I have been designing what are now called databases since 1972 and e-commerce websites since 1995. I am not a genius but I think I have seen enough to recognize when a site like this is pursuing a course of sheer folly.

<p> </p>

</address>