Enable ratings?

[rob_ruttan]

<p>Hello,</p>

<p> I'm not sure I'm right about this, but I suspect "ratings" is disabled on my photos. I have "Allow anonymous critiques" enabled, but never seem to get ratings...could be I'm just not receiving any, but I did sort of like the ratings and wonder how to get them turned on again -- if in fact they are turned off.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Rob</p>

[didereaux]

<p>I may be all wrong, but I wondered the same thing. Eventually I found the 'submit for rating' selection with the 'submit for critique' one. Apparently if you submit for critique the rating is not activated, but if you submit for rating the critique is active. As I said I may be all wet on this, but no matter what it is a ridiculously convoluted way of doing things, and I think totally unnecessarally complicated.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Submitting photos for critiques/comments and ratings are two separate processes. There's a good reason for this. Ratings are merely a popularity contest, comparable to American Idol audience/viewer voting. Ratings are not particularly useful as a critical guideline, but they can help promote the visibility of member photos in two ways:</p>

<ol>

<li>Prominence on the Top Rated Photos.<br />These are usually indicators of basic proficiency in exposure, composition, editing, and mass or popular appeal. Most photos on the TRP reflect either conventional tastes in aesthetically pleasing photos, or current trends in photo editing styles.<br /><br /></li>

<li>Appearance of photos at the bottom of discussion forum threads, like this one.<br />Any member who participants in a discussion forum, and who has submitted photos for ratings that received at least three ratings (however high or low) is eligible to have those photos appear randomly at the bottoms of discussion forum threads. These are usually visible only on conventional web browsers, and probably won't be visible to folks using mobile devices unless they're using a regular web browser rather than the mobile view.<br /><br />At the moment I'm seeing Jake's hummingbird photo, and your swan photo. After I've posted this reply one of my own photos is eligible to appear at the bottom of the thread.</li>

</ol>

<p>The advantage to #2 is that it may pique the interest of forum viewers, who may in turn offer feedback. Photo.net participation has traditionally been divided into two camps: the forum denizens; the portfolio participants, whose emphasis is on gallery views, feedback via critiques/comments/compliments and/or ratings, and the TRP as a generally friendly bit of competition. Because photo.net is based in the US and most visitors are American, the English language tends to dominate the discussion forums. But because photos are an international language the gallery system tends to be more inclusive and is more popular with our diverse international membership.</p>

<p>All photos uploaded to our publicly visible folders are eligible for critiques/comments, even without submitting them for critiques. The vast majority of critiques I receive are unsolicited, courtesy of a small but diverse group of like minded members who share a particular aesthetic.</p>

<p>A few times a year I may submit a few photos for ratings, usually to promote those photos to greater visibility on the discussion forums. They may not be my "best" work, and usually aren't photos that I'm already satisfied with. Often it's offbeat stuff just to pique the curiosity of forum visitors.</p>

<p>And a few times a year I'll park myself at the computer for an hour or two and rate lots of photos in marathon sessions via the dreaded semi-anonymous rate photos queue. It's a chore but since some folks do really want ratings I try to pitch in. And occasionally I will offer written critiques via that rate photos queue. Most of my critiques are attributed. Only a tiny handful have been anonymous by mistake - for some odd reason one of my computers and browsers seems to default to the anonymous setting, and I occasionally forget to uncheck it.</p>

<p>Many of the critiques I offer are driven by what I see at the bottoms of the discussion forum threads. It's often more interesting than the sometimes hum-drum sameness of the TRP and rate photos queue.</p>

<p>So, even if your photos receive low ratings they still gain some additional visibility and a chance at critiques and comments with some substance.</p>

<p>Dive in and let the water roll off your back.</p>

[rob_ruttan]

<p>Thanks for the responses. Lex: I think I do marginally decent work but rarely get responses. Ratings, to me, are a ball park evaluation. I'd like to get more responses in order to get more suggestions for improvement. And I know a response worth ignoring when I see one I once got a long diatribe about, of all things, the title of a picture; it came from someone who clearly didn't "get it" in a number of ways!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>It's difficult to get critiques anywhere. For one thing, it's time consuming. For another, who wants to risk a pissing contest? Whether on photo.net, Flickr, 500px, Facebook or several other sites where I lurk, the vast majority of comments are generic compliments. There are also the generic comments that sound like individualized critiques but are actually generic compliments, with some words about the color, contrast, originality, etc., that could be applied to thousands of photos.</p>

<p>There are a handful of photo.netters who do offer meaningful critiques and comments that are specific to the photo. I wish we could clone them.</p>

<p>For thick-skinned folks, permitting or encouraging anonymous critiques might increase the number of comments and may improve the honesty. Sure, there will be some gratuitously rude comments, but some critiques that may feel rude are also honest and useful. Photo.net does permit us to approve the use of anonymous comments but few folks use it. I did a few times when the option was first permitted, and invariably the recipients of my anonymous critiques immediately deleted their photos. My critiques were certainly not rude or inappropriate in any way. But they were honest and apparently not what the recipients wanted to hear.</p>

<p>In recent days on some Facebook photo groups I follow I've seen a few people ask for critiques and then delete their photos and quit the groups after receiving critiques. Granted, in some cases I thought the critiques were a bit pedantic, citing too many "rules" about photography in general or specific genres. And some of those recipients of critiques were already very good photographers and really didn't need critiques, so I wondered why they bothered to ask and then delete their photos and quit the groups. Perhaps they needed affirmation more than critiques, despite their obvious talent.</p>

<p>So it's pretty much the same everywhere.</p>

<p>Incidentally, take a look at Eric Kim's recent blog posts and videos of critiques by Magnum alumni at a recent workshop. Some readers and reviewers characterized the critiques as "brutal". Personally I thought the critiques were merely honest but hardly brutal. And I noticed that Eric's notes included reminders to himself to stop defending his work and trying to excuse or explain everything during critique sessions. So while I'm not a big fan of his photography, much of which seems pretty generic and unremarkable, I do admire his positive attitude and ability to absorb the true lessons of a real critique session.</p>

<p>And I do wonder how he might have responded to exactly the same words coming from an anonymous source, or me, rather than from David Alan Harvey and other Magnum members.</p>

<p>Do we value the source, and perceived credibility of that source, as much as or more than the content of what they say? My experience on photo.net indicates, yes, many of us do tend to invest more value into critiques from photographers or critics whose work we admire, respect or at least acknowledge due to their stature. I've read some excellent critiques by photo.netters who have no viewable portfolios, or who use pseudonyms here, but they eventually quit because their critiques were rejected and wasted on people who only wanted affirmation, or who wanted access to the critic's portfolio to leave retaliatory remarks.</p>