What could the rating system be?

[Laura Weishaupt]

<p>I'm in complete agreement with Fred G. on separating photos at the bottom of the threads from ratings. I appreciate you articulating this thought. Perhaps we could have a folder in our portfolio called "Photos at the Bottom of the Page" , or something to that effect. We could choose the photos from our portfolio and rotate them in and out of the folder. It's an idea. I have no idea what would be involved from a tech point of view on this.</p>

<p> </p>

[tsappas]

<p>As the culprit of making Fred start this thread i will put some ideas and suggestions forward.</p>

<p>It's 2013,maybe PN was very popular and unique 6-7 years ago but the world of photo communities has evolved.There are so many out there ready to steal the photographers from PN.They have better servers,better designed sites,better rating systems (systems that suit their membership) and some the top photographers.<br>

As for the opposition to some members to any changes,i will give some examples .To my opinion the management left the site to run itself on the ratings side for too long.I think nobody watched the ratings for the last year.Last January a member flipped and dished out 2000 1s and 2s in a matter of 10 days (this member is still very active on the rating forum but has not given a rating since then,somehow the management was alerted and stopped it) .He probably rated every photo posted during that period with an 1 or 2.Can you imagine yourself as a new member who just paid his subscription been bombarded with 1s and 2s for every image you posted during that time.If it was me i would probably leave from a site of crazy raters.In early february another member appeared ,he was rating nudes with 7s and everything else with 1s 2s and 3s( in the thousands),in other words he had no photos probably no camera and was using the site for pornography, but he felt powerful because he could change the order of photos on that night on a FREE account.that account was deleted by Josh as soon he was alerted to it.Since then it became an epidemic,almost every week someone appears who resurrects his free account from 2006 or whatever,throws all kind of ratings around and disappears.Do we really need this kind of members?PN's competitors would not tolerate them.</p>

<p>As for the number of ratings some members are worried about.I posted a photo about 18 months ago (I travelled 2000 miles ,drove for 4 hours and got up at 5.30 am twice to shoot that photo).I put the photo up for rating,it has 57 ratings,33 comments and scored 5.79.DOES IT REALLY take 57 ratings for a photo to score 5.79? (if you want so see that photo send me a message). 15 ratings would have been fine.I have seen other photos with 18 ratings scoring 3.80 .The point i am making here is that the number of ratings does not matter,the quality and message they give matters.(the message i got for the above photo was that certain members did not want me to score any higher).</p>

<p>SUGGESTIONS .Leave the ratings as they are but have a good number of experienced trusted moderators who understand the rating system and give them the power to suspend or delete the accounts of abusers,delete ratings due to abuse,give warnings and keep order. OR ,non subscribers have to earn rating points through comments in order to rate .OR .Put a limit to the amount of ratings under 5 that all members can give (similar to the present 7 rating restriction).</p>

<p>OTHER SUGGESTIONS.Stop the ability to rate from mobile devises.To my opinion the screen is too small to judge the quality of a photo AND .Make the fast rate recent rating forum slower to stop prolific raters from dishing large amount of ratings without looking properly at photos.</p>

<p>I have more to suggest but the last 2 days we had very good light in London and i was out shooting wildlife.</p>

<p>Thanks,Harry</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>I wouldn't be as vocal about ratings if it didn't have such a profound impact on site dynamics, and ultimately, site culture and site activity (or lack of). This is my take:</p>

<ul>

<li>Rating photos is the easiest site activity to engage in for the purposes of announcing ones presence. </li>

<li>Receiving high ratings means a photographer will be guaranteed high site-wide visibility. </li>

<li>If you don't rate photos, your work will be cut out for you in terms of generating activity toward your work.</li>

<li>If you don't receive ratings, then you essentially don't exist. </li>

</ul>

<p> <br>

One can easily rate 5,000 photos a years, that translates into 7 hours of total rating time if we're generous enough to allow 5 seconds for every rate. The site impact of this type of activity is enormous as it produces "Top Photographers", "Top Photos"; essentially top everything. <br>

<br>

The reward for the rater is distributed site-wide visibility - those receiving the ratings will often be curious enough to see who the rater is and visit their portfolio, so in essence it can become a tool of announcement saying "I'm here, and I rated your photo, now come see my work". <br>

<br>

Now let's compare ratings to comments:<br>

It takes much more work to comment and achieve the same "giver benefit" as offering a simple rating. A thoughtful and constructive comment can take anywhere from many minutes to hours, and it would take years to achieve the same effect as offering ratings. <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=689679">Stephen Penland</a> is a good example of this - he has given almost 12,000 comments and none of them are one-liners. He has rated 318 photos over the same 10 years. <br>

<br>

If we average 5 minutes for every one of Stephen's comments, he would have spent 1,000 hours producing those comments, compared to 17 hours it will take to rate the equivalent number of photos. <br>

<br>

I'm not suggesting any negativity or speculation toward any single participant's motive regardless on how anyone chooses to participate, rather to point out how Stephen's activity might be recognized as more valuable to the site, but actually results in less impact on site dynamics. <br>

<br>

It's something to think about. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Good analysis, Michael. Enlightening. A bit troubling.</p>

<p>This may suggest that critiquing others' photos has to be, at least in part, its own reward. We can critique to articulate things to ourselves and to learn about photography by looking carefully and putting into thoughts, words, and feelings what we see as much as to share something with other photographers. While the reward may not be overall visibility on the site, it can come in the form of some good encounters, some good responses to our own critiques in dialogue or insight from the photographers we've critiqued or others who are reading. Giving a critique can improve our ability to see. I sense, from having read many of Stephen's comments and sharing with him on many occasions, that Stephen is rewarded in some of these ways.</p>

<p>That doesn't change the facts you stated and that it could be well worth considering ways to adjust the fairness factor relative to how people participate and can be rewarded.</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm offering the following opinions and suggestions from the perspective that I believe the ratings are a good thing for the site. Plenty of members enjoy it. I believe there are possibilities to extend that rather than maintain the status quo or to disregard ratings as irrelevant or merely an annoyance to be tolerated. I see strong possibilities for a good system to be a real asset to the site.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Leave the ratings as they are but have a good number of experienced trusted moderators who understand the rating system and give them the power to suspend or delete the accounts of abusers,delete ratings due to abuse,give warnings and keep order."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To some extent (other than having the ability to delete accounts) this is the system we've always had. If we see suspicious activity, or a member reports suspicious activity to us, we report it to the folks in admin who do have the ability to delete accounts that have been confirmed to be abusive, or sockpuppets. It's extremely time consuming to investigate every accusation of "abuse" in the ratings system and determine whether the accusation is valid. Perhaps it's merely a legitimate member who is very active in ratings and simply doesn't believe there are that many photos that are truly above average. We must be careful to avoid deleting accounts merely because the person happens to be active and happens to believe that most photos he or she rates are only average or below average.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...non subscribers have to earn rating points through comments in order to rate..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The concept of tying together critiques/comments with ratings has been discussed and cussed many times over the years. The consensus invariably is that the two activities are completely separate and shouldn't be tied together. Among many reasons, a numerical rating is clear regardless of language barriers, while written critiques tend to favor English speaking participants.</p>

<p>Tying ratings to comments, and limiting ratings to a qualified class invariably favors members who communicate well in English, and who have good social networking skills.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Put a limit to the amount of ratings under 5 that all members can give (similar to the present 7 rating restriction)."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Limiting the amount of ratings of average (4) and below presumes that there is an equal supply of very good photos on the one side (worthy of 6 or 7) and below average or poor photos (1-3) on the other side. Clearly this isn't true. There are far, far more below average, technically incompetent and artistically indifferent photos. Add to that the complexities of discerning between niche tastes.</p>

<p>By limiting the number of ratings between 1-4, it effectively reduces the entire system to one in which, to borrow from Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon monologues, all the photographers are strong, every photograph is good looking and every photograph is above average. But not <em>too</em> far above average.</p>

<p>For a truly fair, competitive ratings system to be valid - not to say popular or pleasing to all participants:</p>

<ol>

<li>It must factor ratings of 1 and 2 into the average. Otherwise it's a 1-5 system disguised as a 3-7 system, not a true 1-7 system. (And perhaps it should be a genuine 1-5 system anyway.)</li>

<li>It must not limit ratings of any kind, low, average or high.</li>

<li>It must be either judged by a qualified class of jurors known to all, or must be an entirely anonymous popularity contest akin to the well know audience-driven musical talent shows. Anything in between is unlikely to succeed. (However I believe there is room for both distinct types of ratings systems.)</li>

</ol>

<p>Personally, I'd like to see three separate and distinct systems:</p>

<ol>

<li>A simple "Like" button that applies to all photographs uploaded to photo.net. (I'd like to see this on the weekly photo sharing forum threads as well.) It's easy, fun, harmless and in my experience fosters an optimistic and upbeat atmosphere.</li>

<li>A juror system including a good sized pool of subscribers who are known to members who receive ratings or votes. Submissions are voluntary and should be limited to only a tiny handful of the member's best work per week or month.</li>

<li>A purely anonymous, pure popularity system without any possible means of identifying the raters. It must be as efficient as possible to encourage as much participation as possible. This is purely voluntary - if you don't want your photos to be rated by hoi polloi, don't submit them for ratings.</li>

</ol>

<p>Regarding #2, this could be an extension of the POW, which has already cultivated a number of veteran members and subscribers who are well qualified as jurors. And members receiving ratings must learn to accept ratings graciously. This will be difficult for the same reason such judging tends to be controversial in *any* such competition of any kind, whether figure skating or the international piano competitions. And some members will never graciously accept low or average ratings. In my opinion members who refuse to graciously accept the ratings of such a system should be suspended from this type of competition, particularly if they target any individual judges for abuse or harassment.</p>

<p>A juror type system would probably be overwhelmed by the current system, which allows subscribers to submit many photos every day. Such a system might work better if subscribers were limited to submitting only a few carefully selected photos per week.</p>

<p>Regarding #3, for the pure popularity type of system the raters should be drawn from the entire photo.net community, and the system should be entirely anonymous (other than to administration). It should be as efficient as possible to encourage as much participation as possible. This seems entirely sensible based on the assumption that the vast majority of members - subscribers or not - are interested in in photography and are therefore qualified to rate photos. If enough members cast votes, it will tend to offset attempts to rig voting. But anytime fewer members participate there is a greater chance that a relative handful of the most determined members will attempt to rig voting, including through sockpuppet accounts or getting family and friends to use multiple accounts.</p>

<p>The current submission limits are reasonable for such an anonymous, pure popularity contest type system. In effect, we already have such a system. The only significant change would be to eliminate any names of any raters from appearing. And the "Photos rated highest by this member" feature should be eliminated since, as Line has discovered, this reveals who gave ratings of 6 and 7 and who, by omission, rated below 6.</p>

[pnital]

<p>Wow, what a thread this is ! To summe it up, for me, is Fred's first (start) part, and Michael's 4 points...<br /> I stopped rating (most of my work) a long time ago ,and really preffer to get and give GOOD critique,not as/in a reciprocal basis, but the kind that I see interesting (again for me...)going the extra mile of observation ,imagination , fantasy,and therefor communicating.!</p>

<p> </p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Lex, I don't think we should do away with ratings either, rather it should take on another form that does not communicate or suggest competition or can somehow generate negative feelings among participants.</p>

<p>I think some variation of the "Like" or "Thumbs-Up" button will adequately fulfill every site objective - it will produce popular photos as it currently does; no feelings get hurt, and it also can serve a social function to develop relationships between members.<br /> <br /> The context of my thinking revolves more around "what's good for business" by taking a long term view on how photo.net can attract potential new members by making the site interesting and friendly enough to register, and have a positive in-house atmosphere in place that is conducive to making them, not only stay, but become active, and hopefully result in their eventual patronage.<br /> <br /> The reason "Ratings" is important in this context is because it's the most prominent engagement tool available to a new member whether giving or receiving. Members join as total strangers, and we all know how difficult it is to to make yourself "fit in" a new place, especially so for beginners with nothing more than snapshots to show but fill with enthusiasm, curiosity, eagerness to learn, and a desire to make contact in a friendly way. Photo.net, for the most part, is not particularly new-member friendly unless they come equipped with a shining portfolio or pre-established standing or credibility. <br /> <br /> Of course it also takes initiative on the part of a newbie, but the site structure should not ignore their needs and the potential impact on them by our insistence on creating a competitive atmosphere, so in that context, 1's and 2's should be abolished, and 3-5, 6-7 can become "Likes" to signify one, and its absence, the other. <br /> <br /> <br /> </p>

[LineMartel]

<p>I like Lex ideas... a juror system, would give a much needed option to those who are not into the game of winning at all cost-even if it means killing your competition! You will never fix the problem of mate rating and down rating by those people, so Lex option of submitting to a popularity vote should satisfy those people.</p>

[LineMartel]

<p> Michael<br>

In a competitive game I think that the idea of a "Like" or "Thumbs up" button would not change anything. It would certainly not relieve the frustration that many members have already expressed. Instead of down rating now the game players will just ignore people so they have less "Likes" and will "Like" only the people they want to see at the top...</p>

[tsappas]

<p>Lex. the 1s and 2s do count,At least for the last 2 years</p>

<p>Michael. so far the system you are suggesting is the only one with some sense.That system is used by other sites,it has 3 buttons and a very sophisticated algorithm giving or taking away points for each button.the buttons are DISLIKE,LIKE and FAVOURITE,those buttons have different values.the dislike button is restricted to a selected number of members.if the dislike buttons is used for abuse then it's taken away from the member.This system only ads ratings to an image,it needs a large flow of images (which PN at the moment does not have) and it rates only upwards.A lot of images will go without any ratings and it actually relies on mate-rating to work. If you take the present PN system but restrict the ability of non subscribers,members with a rating average "say" below 5.00 to rate below 5 then you have a very similar system</p>

[Rick Bortnick]

<p>Lex, Michael, & other Button Pressers:</p>

<p>With all due respect, I find the “Like” button & its ilk disturbing. Why must everything be a competition or turned into one? Are there not enough? As an example of this trend was the administration removing the monthly project & replacing it with the monthly contest. In addition, you have had an entire forum to keep abreast of these. </p>

<p> Some of us (despite your experience) do not find the idea “fun” nor “fostering an upbeat atmosphere”. If we want a comment we ask for it. There is an entire forum just for that. If we want to find out if anyone likes our image, there are two different means by which we can be rated. <br>

Is your idea with the like button or buttons to move PN to be more like Facebook? If so, why? Or why not post your images there? Can’t there be a place where one can come & enjoy art for the sake of art? If we like an image then say so. The caviler button pushing removes one from the personal exchange to an impersonal number. Isn’t it the exchange that we & PN want to foster? </p>

<p> The only flaw I see to the current system is the robo-rating ability (upper right hand corner “button” labeled rate recent for those who are wondering). Doesn’t take long to look & rate. If you want to rate, go through the critique forum, in essence you have to look at the image, go to the page, look at it again. More time observing.</p>

<p>I thought long & hard about whether to hit the submit button on this. While I don’t post here though I follow the forum. I write because I find the competitiveness seeping in lately disconcerting. I for one do not find it healthy for artists.</p>

 

[Laura Weishaupt]

<blockquote>

<p>A simple "Like" button that applies to all photographs uploaded to photo.net. (I'd like to see this on the weekly photo sharing forum threads as well.) It's easy, fun, harmless and in my experience fosters an optimistic and upbeat atmosphere.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All due respect, please, let's not do this, especially in weekly threads. When folks enjoy a photo in a weekly thread, they say so, with words. It takes time and thought. Those words feel genuine and far more optimistic than a button. Weekly threads aren't competition, they are small showcases for a contributors best or favorite image. Why should these "like" buttons be everywhere? In my experience they are annoying at best, and foster an atmosphere of competition where no "likes" equals dislike. It's not my idea of fun, and hardly harmless. I participate in 2 weekly threads and this is about the last thing I'd want to see. In Nature there was a discussion early on about how much participants did not want the weekly thread to feel like a competition.</p>

<p>Ratings and critique are the places for these things, not on every image in every location throughout the site. There are opportunities to "like" photos. There are competitions on photo.net. Can we please keep "liking" and the like in those locations?</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Rick, the basic reason for some type of rating system is to extract high quality images so they can be showcased - it's an entirely reasonable requirement. The question we're discussing is how do we do it in a way that satisfies site requirement without its associated problems. </p>

<p>This thread is getting long and you might have misunderstood or not read the entire thread. I don't advocate Facebook's "Like" button, although I can understand why the site adopted it, rather I'm suggesting something akin to it within our own system without requiring a Facebook account. </p>

<p>This discussion has been going on since I joined in 2000. The original rating system had 2 categories - Aesthetics and Originality - each on a scale of 10 so a rating had two numbers. That eventually evolved to what we have today, but far from a problem solved, we're still discussing it in a changing world now filled with general and specialized photo sites competing for the same photographers. </p>

[Rick Bortnick]

<p>Michael,<br>

I did read the entire thread. I think you missed my point. At the start it appeared to be about changing/improving the rating system. The thread seems to have shifted to adopting a more competitive outlook towards ratings or a Facebook-like system (button pressing - Like or Thumbs up). PN is the site I have chosen to use & for that matter support. The "atmosphere" being the primary reason. Unlike many photo sites, PN - currently- promotes exchanges between photographers. This is through the system provided, either publicly or through PM's. Change is good, but only when it moves forward. Change for the sake of change is not always for better.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Why must everything be a competition or turned into one?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The ratings system has always been a popularity contest - a competition for high ratings and prominence on the TRP. And there are many members who enjoy the ratings - at least, they enjoy receiving high ratings. My suggestions over the years have always been toward acknowledging that it's a competition and making the game as fair as possible for every who <em>*chooses to play*</em>.</p>

<p>And that's the key. Participating in the ratings is a choice. If you dislike competition and see no point in it, that's fine. I tend to agree. But many other members do happen to enjoy that aspect of photo.net. And their enjoyment of that aspect of photo.net does no in any way detract from how you or I enjoy the site.</p>

<p> </p>

[Rick Bortnick]

<p>Lex,<br>

I am in full agreement about engaging in ratings being a choice. I would never want to take that choice away from anyone. However:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A simple "Like" button that applies to all photographs uploaded to photo.net</p>

</blockquote>

<p>- no longer appears to be a voluntary choice. Now I have been forced to<em> choose to play</em>, hence my initial post. That involuntary-ness does detract from how I enjoy this site. As long as there is choice in participating, great. None-the-less, the topic has seem to be moving away from that choice.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think Rick makes some excellent points. I also would not like to see anything resembling a LIKE button that applies to all photos. And, though ratings are a choice, as I pointed out in my previous post, in order to have your photos appear on the bottom of threads, you HAVE TO make the choice to have your photos rated, which has always seemed odd to me.</p>

<p>Rick's point about putting some limits on competitive aspects is also a good one. While the ratings section may be popular, there's nothing wrong with a photography site like PN leading rather than following and pushing its members toward a more careful and considered approach to photography than the current ratings system allows.</p>

<p>Though tying ratings to critiques does seem to disadvantage non-English speakers, which was mentioned, the entire site disadvantages non-English speakers by being in English. If it could be shown that people for whom English is a second language are participating in the ratings section as the only viable means by which they could communicate, I'd certainly want to know that and then would seriously consider not tying ratings to critiques. But if it can't be established that ratings are being used for the purpose of communicating without being fluent in English, I'll stick with the idea of tying them to critiques.</p>

<p>Many people have expressed over and over again the desire to get their work critiqued (more than rated), and bringing some raters into the critique forum by tying the two features together will, as has been said, add some perfunctory remarks but will likely add some more thoughtful ones as well. I'm NOT suggesting you'd <em>have to</em> rate with a critique, just that it would be the place to rate if you want to. I don't agree with suggestions that are trying to make it quicker and easier to rate a photo. It might have the popularity that things have on Facebook, but it's, IMO, not photo-substantive. As Rick put it, <em>"If you want to rate, go through the critique forum, in essence you have to look at the image, go to the page, look at it again. More time observing."</em><br /> <br /> Under Rick's proposal, you'd now be on the critique page in order to give a rating and an upside of this, IMO, could be that you'd be more prone to say a few words while you're already there. As a matter of fact, it might be a good alternative to my own suggestion. Instead of insisting a critique must be given along with a rate, perhaps just get everyone to the critique page in order to rate and hope that more critiques will then be given. Perhaps with each rate, there could be a prompt such as <em>"Do you want to say something to the photographer along with your rating? Explanations of a number often help in the learning process."</em> A critique box could be supplied upon giving a rating, but in this new mechanism, it could be utilized or skipped over by the rater once it appears.</p>

<p> </p>

[mhahn]

<p>Should be multiple components to the rating system, and the components could vary depending on the category of picture (e.g., the components of portraits wouldn't be exactly the same as the components for landscapes).</p>

<p>Thus, the ratings would constitute an evaluation of the picture, not just a like or dislike. It would be more interesting to give an evaluation like this, as well as more informative to receive.</p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>Should be multiple components to the rating system, and the components could vary depending on the category of picture (e.g., the components of portraits wouldn't be exactly the same as the components for landscapes).<br>

Thus, the ratings would constitute an evaluation of the picture, not just a like or dislike. It would be more interesting to give an evaluation like this, as well as more informative to receive.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This presupposes that there is an <em><strong>objective</strong></em> reality to ratings and evaluations that can be broken down into individually quantifiable components. I don't think that's true. You can't quantitatively analyse art. You either like it, are unmoved by it or you dislike it. You don't like it because it scores a 7.89 for composition and a 6.72 for use of color. It doesn't work that way.</p>

<p>Photographs also have a huge range of intended audiences. Some are intended to be fine art. Some are intended to be documentary. Some are intended to be personal mementos. Some are intended to be used in advertising. Some are intended to be combination of these and other purposes. Each would have a different rating scale because each would to taken with a different goal.</p>

<p>If you think you can improve your photography by trying to maximize the scores for each component in a rating scheme, I fear you are likely to be disappointed.</p>

<p>I don't think a multicomponent rating scheme with 0-10 scores in a buch of different categories would, in the end, give you any more useful information that a like/indifferent/don't like 3 way voting scheme.</p>

<p>If you judge the quality of an image by how much someone is willing to pay for it, take a look at this - <a href="http://gizmodo.com/the-10-most-expensive-photographs-in-the-world-866891077">http://gizmodo.com/the-10-most-expensive-photographs-in-the-world-866891077</a>. I'd pretty much guarantee that <em><strong>whatever </strong></em>rating scheme you come up with, no matter how complex and involved, <em><strong>none</strong></em> of these images would get a high rating - and in fact most would probably be close to the <em><strong>bottom</strong></em> of any list. Some of them probably deserve to be, but that's an entirely different discussion.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>I think Bob is certainly right that there is a limit to the relevance of ratings.</p>

<p>On the other hand, you wouldn't figure out whether or not you liked a photo based on the ratings you gave it for composition, color, etc. Your ratings would simply give voice to the reasons why you liked or disliked a photo.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I think the point is that since the amount of actual information you get from ratings is small, the goal should be to make it as simple as possible since since even to get a small amount of additional information (and even that is debatable) requires a large expenditure of effort and a large increase in complexity.</p>

<p>I'd say [like/indifferent/don't like] would be enough. If you want numbers, internally convert them into a 10/5/0 score and average them. so an image with 10 likes, 4 indifferents and 3 dislikes would score 100+20+0 from 17 ratings, or an average of 7.1 It's a fairly meaningless number of course, but people want numbers, so give them one. It's not totally meaningless because, on average, the more people who like the image and the fewer people who dislike the image, the higher numerical rating it will get</p>

<p>Make it simple and fun and people will use it. Make it serious and hard work and people won't. By "people" I mean the typical user, not the dedicated hard core few.</p>

<p>If you want critiques, figure out a way to make them easy and fun. Don't try to sneak then in via the back door by incorporating them into some sort of complex ratings scheme that nobody will really understand.</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>It looks like we're back to a familiar plateau in these discussions about the ratings system.</p>

<p>I see that many folks in this particular conversation have participated in the ratings, usually as both rater and ratee. Clearly, you wanted, expected, or at least hoped for <em>something</em> from the ratings.</p>

<p>So, what is it you would like to get from <em>a</em> ratings system? I mean, other than high ratings. We'd all like that. But what were you expecting from the ratings system that:</p>

<ol>

<li>You can't already get from the written critiques; and</li>

<li>Didn't get from the existing ratings system?</li>

</ol>

<p>I'll start...</p>

<p>I like the ratings option because it does make my photos more visible. More visibility means a greater likelihood of receiving feedback from viewers. I don't care what the ratings are. Simply submitting my photos for ratings meant eyes would be on my photos even via the "anonymous" Rate Photos queue. My photos would occasionally appear at the bottom of discussion forums threads. And my photos would appear on the TRP even if the ratings average is below 5.</p>

<p>So why should I be concerned if some folks didn't want to lavish my photos with 6's and 7's? I don't take the kind of photos that everyone will like anyway, and I'd be darned skeptical if I got consistently high ratings. I mainly wanted feedback. I figured out a way to use - or exploit - the system to get what I wanted: more feedback and comments from viewers, more impressions about how they reacted to what they saw.</p>

<p>So... what is it that <em>you</em> want from a ratings system?</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"So... what is it that you want from a ratings system?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't participate in the rating system at all, but how it functions is entirely relevant in the way it impacts the site, and therefore impacts my little corner. <br>

<br>

I would like to see a rating system that is friendly to all users maybe in a way that is similar to how current contests are conducted on this site - winners are picked, but the rest are not identified as losers. <br>

<br>

Photo contests and ratings have always been about personal bias anyway, so It doesn't have to be fair in absolute terms as long as biases are not highlighted to draw attention onto itself. This is the reason why Facebook "Likes" produce resentment because it's clearly biased in favor of those who are the most "popular" on Facebook, and made blatantly obvious as a judging criteria. It might draw new users from Facebook in the short term, at least long enough to "vote", but I suspect the practice will not produce the desired long term outcome. <br>

</p>

[Rick Bortnick]

<p>Lex,</p>

<p>I would like to see a more thoughtful way of getting rated. One that may generate more written responses and exchanges, fostering a community as opposed to being merely numerical.</p>

<p>A suggestion:</p>

<p>Remove the robo-rating option & have the rater go in through the same forum as a critiquer would. An impression I get about low ratings is that many of the low ratings came from the “Rate Recent” button. People wiz through an image and rate it, whether it is their forte or not. Quite often it appears that an image is rated by individuals who have little interest in the genre hence a lower score.</p>

<p>If one goes in through the Critique Forum, you would have to actually go to the image page to rate it. Advantages – (1) more time viewing an image before rating it; (2) You have to actually want to take the time/initiative to rate the image; & (3) greater chance of a critique being left.</p>

<p>Many people who go to the Critique Forum tend to look at one or a few categories/genres. They have an interest in those particular images & are more apt (?) to rate the image on its merits. Some (myself included) have the all filter selected. There are times I will comment on an image that is not necessarily in my forte (so to speak) but looks so strong or compelling that I feel I must. The point is that I have to look, decide, go to, look again, decide again, and then act (or not). A more thoughtful response, on my end.</p>

<p>An analogy if you will:</p>

<p>PhotoNet is like an art museum. I like Art Nouveau, Classical, Impressionism, & Renaissance art. These are the galleries (category/genre) I go to & appreciate. I can & do make comments on what I see (typically positive). I’m not a fan of Post-modernism or Cubism. I tend not to go into those galleries, I don’t appreciate the style so tend not to comment on them & if I do it tends to be negative. Periodically, I just walk through the gallery/forum looking at all the art & only stopping at the ones that grab my attention, for whatever reason.</p>

<p>I don’t know if I got the gist of my idea across, I hope so. You have asked for suggestions & one wants to be a positive force in the museum we all contribute to.<br>

[Apologies for the maudlin ending]</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Rick, it sounds like you might prefer the juror type system, which was one of my three suggestions. I'd really like to see something like that adopted, for members who would prefer more critical analysis along with the ratings, something akin to the weekly POW critique sessions with some sort of numerical or other value assigned as well.</p>

<p>I still suspect that many folks would be happy to continue using the current ratings system pretty much as-is, which is a simple popularity contest type approach.</p>

<p>But it would be interesting to see a more critical rating system as an option, particularly if it helped identify photo.net's excellent photographers who don't dominate the Top Rated Photos gallery, if only because they haven't cultivated the social networking and popularity that drives the TRP.</p>