Can a frequent reviewer be banned?

photogagog · February 4, 2015

So there's a photo.net user with over 65,000 critiques. I've been looking at his posts and they are all almost bot-like repetitions of the

same, one-sentence, useless platitudes. He really isn't helping the process or the photographers and I assume is only trying to get his

review count high (much like having thousands of "friends" on facebook). Is there any moderator that can do something about it? I would

really like to see the critique forum be more helpful to the photographers.

Tim_Lookingbill · February 4, 2015

Don't you think we're getting into freedom of speech violation territory banning someone for giving perceived useless critiques?

photogagog · February 4, 2015

Well that was a running jump onto the slippery slope :-). I'm all about free speech but as a community, there are agreed

upon standards of behavior to participate in the conversation. I was only asking if there was a way to limit the abuse of the

forum rules...perhaps some sort of moderation? Now if you don't mind, i gotta go find a crowded theater and inform them

about a fire that may or may not be in progress.

Matt Laur · February 4, 2015

NOT a freedom of speech issue. If this were a government-run web site, paid for with tax dollars, etc. But PN is a privately owned site, run with a specific editorial orientation and with a tone that moderators are tasked to preserve. The people who own it and run it have every right and every reason to decide when and whether someone is using the site in a way that diminishes its purpose. Whether or not Mr. Prolific Review Guy hurts the site is a good question. Seems a bit odd, but probably benign. Very easy to just ignore such things.

lex_jenkins · February 4, 2015

One of our challenges is to encourage more members to offer ratings and critiques/comments. It wouldn't contribute to that goal if we prevent someone from rating/critiquing photos because of the style of their comments, as long as they're not abusive or violating any of our written guidelines, policies or terms of use.

There are no tangible rewards for prolific rating and commentary - no money, no free or discounted subscriptions, no higher profile that might benefit their personal or commercial photography, etc. - so it's reasonable to assume that anyone who joins the site to participate in critiques is genuinely interested in photography and is participating to the best of their abilities.

Keep in mind that photo.net has an international membership and not everyone is comfortable with the English language. They may prefer simple, direct, somewhat generic compliments or comments in order to avoid being misinterpreted. Every language has idiomatic expressions and nuances that are not easily mastered, yet are easily misused or misinterpreted.

For what it's worth, some photo.net members outside the U.S. who are active on ratings/critiques are also active on Facebook. On Facebook I see them engage in more in-depth conversations and fewer generic compliments in their own languages.

If I were to attempt to write a comment in Spanish, French, German, Dutch, etc., I'd confine my comments to very straightforward remarks that wouldn't be misinterpreted, because I'd be relying on Google Translate which doesn't always capture the nuances of idiomatic expressions, nuances and informal conversational usages. Occasionally I've written comments that are intended to be humorous but never hurtful. Recently an online friend deleted one of my comments because another viewer misinterpreted my remarks and found them offensive. I would never deliberately write anything that might harm or embarrass the subject of a photographer's street, candid or documentary photography, so if anything I've written might be misconstrued I absolutely agree that the comments should be deleted to avoid any risk of harm. However, due to the sensitive nature of commentary, such "political correctness" can tend to have a chilling effect on any commentary beyond simple platitudes, praise and compliments. It's just one of the realities of online communication. Usually it's safer to give a non-verbal high rating or "like" and a simple comment of praise that cannot be misinterpreted.

ellis_vener_photography · February 4, 2015

Tim: "Freedom of Speech violation territory"? When did photo.net become a governmental agency?

I am pretty much in full 100% agreement with Matt.

Tim_Lookingbill · February 5, 2015

Boy, I really know how to set 'em up so others can knock it out of the ballpark.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "violation". I was under the assumption that offering an opinion in the form of a critique was part of free speech just as is complaining about a person's lack of effort put behind formulating opinions.

65,000 critiques?! Give that guy an award for the effort. I mean if you don't like what you get for free then don't read it. Why seek to ban someone for that amount of time spent formulating and writing an opinion. I would think if the guy's some auto-bot poster they'ld have been marked as spam by now but it's clear Photo.net admin. didn't think so and let this guy run up that many phoney or lackluster critiques.

But I see again there isn't going to be a solution to the OP's concerns, so yeah, Photo.net isn't a governmental institution even though it seems to be operated like one IMO.

And I agree with Lex. So there! ;)

JDMvW · February 5, 2015

So, you only have freedom of speech on "government" sites?

Private ownership does not give you the right to deny service to someone because of their skin color, for example. Of course it might be different under Rand Paul.

Constitutional rights apply to all kinds of 'private settings.'

MichaelChang · February 5, 2015

.[.Z was a prolific rater with 57,869 ratings to his credit in a few short years. His ratings were rarely accompanied by comments which became a frequent source of forum complaints.

To my knowledge, .[.Z was banned a number of years ago for reasons other than his ratings, although arguments resulting from his ratings might have been the original cause.

<a href="/photodb/user-ratings?user_id=116858">http://www.photo.net/photodb/user-ratings?user_id=116858</a>

I say leave it alone. It is more fruitful to offer more thoughtful comments than to engage in these types of discussions that usually result in very long threads and not much else.

Wouter Willemse · February 5, 2015

Agree with Lex and Matt, and specifically:

Whether or not Mr. Prolific Review Guy hurts the site is a good question

</blockquote>

Indeed it is. So, we have a member that is actively contributing, but in a way that doesn't suit each and all of us. In a communuity that isn't showing much growth, can we afford to be as picky? In real life, I see enough people behaving in ways I don't particularly like - the web is no different. Are his comments offensive, insults or ill-substantiated, or are they encouragment? Whenever possible, live and let live, I'd say.

But I'd love to get a critique from Lex in Dutch, and if that one turns out offensive, ill-substantiated or the like, I'll probably have a very good laugh :-)

Matt Laur · February 5, 2015

Wouter: Dat is een uitstekend commentaar. Ik hou van uw gebruik van optimisme naar de existentiële angst dat je compositie drijft overwinnen. Als er meer bokeh, zou mijn grammatica beter zijn. And JDM:

So, you only have freedom of speech on "government" sites?

</blockquote>

The first amendment limits the government's power to interfere with speech - it doesn't force you to provide me with a platform to publish whatever I feel like saying. Freedom (from government blocking) of speech and assembly isn't the same as compulsion to provide others with the use of your personal printing press (or web site) and access to your audience. Web sites run by government agencies have to tread much more carefully - but even there, publications have editorial sensibilities. Which is why the federal employee who writes a wildlife blog for a given national park has no obligation to spend your tax dollars publishing mailed-in rants by people who say there's a giant UFO buried beneath Yellowstone. That's perfectly appropriate discrimination, separating the rational from the irrational, the on-topic from the off-topic. Even if someone could show that all three people who emailed in a demand to publish that theory happened to be of ethnic Sami extraction, that would still be correlation, not causation, and doesn't run afoul of the first amendment. The first amendment offers protection (from government interference) for PN's editorial decision making, not a lurking threat against it. Non-government entities like you and me can shout down what we see as odius editorial decisions by putting up our own web sites as we see fit. Or more passively, just walking away from this one if its policies ruffle our feathers. That's just how it should be.

david_henderson · February 5, 2015

I guess the simplest way to look at it is that of course a frequent reviewer can be banned, so long as the same criteria are used to decide as for a contributor of any frequency, or type of contribution.

The answers seem to be drifting in the direction of "can anyone be banned?" and I don't think that's what was asked, though the answer is evident since people are banned, both frequent and less frequent contributors.

Norma Desmond · February 5, 2015

Whether curtailing someone's speech is technically a matter of constitutional "free speech" doesn't seem to much matter here. A member is simply asking whether the writings of someone whose posts he deems inappropriate should be deleted or the person should be banned from further writing. The fairly obvious answer to me is "No!" This should not require a lecture on constitutional law. It should be a matter of common sense. Most of us are human and there are times the behavior of others annoys us, justifiably or not. In most cases, the best thing to do is not seek authoritative remedies but simply change the channel or ignore the offender. I've guessed at two people who Patrick could be talking about. And they annoy me no end. I consider that much more my problem than theirs, trying to be honest with myself. Their critiques do seem like mindless and repetitious platitudes and the sheer volume of them suggests to me that they are trying to drive views to their own photos. So, when I step back from my own annoyance, I say if they've figured out a way to get a little attention around here, more power to them. Site administration isn't doing anything about the increasing state of malaise on PN. As a matter of fact, their behavior for the last couple of years suggests they have little interest in us and seem to be willing to let the site die if not actually encouraging a slow and steady death. So, I kind of admire anyone who is proactive in getting themselves noticed, as long as they're not breaking any site rules. And I'd much rather see site administration fulfill its promise to redesign and reinvigorate the site than to have them worrying about banning people for overly rote and complimentary critiques.

Matt Laur · February 5, 2015

I agree, Fred, that worrying about how or whether some user overplays the platitude-style critiques is pretty much a non-issue, relative to the rapidly accelerating evaporation of PN participation. It's pretty breathtaking, really. So many horses have left the barn at this point that I'm not sure whether the redesign (which I know had seen some work as of a few months back, but I have no idea how stalled out that effort is) will have even the slightest impact. I worry that anything that risks making the site's long history of content less visible may actually kill off its only source of new traffic (which is people Googling for the stuff that's been talked about here so many times over the years). Mostly, I just don't want anyone to lobby for making this place any more trouble to run than it already is, lest the owners just understandably throw up their hands and walk away in favor of pushing cat memes on Facebook for the no doubt better ad revenue. After years of telling other people to participate in ratings and critiques if they want to see more action that way on their own work, I've essentially stopped all such stuff here myself. A few conversations here and there, my ritual weekly launching of the Nikon Wednesday thread (to an imploding group of participants), and the practically cut/paste responses to routine questions in the beginner forum. The rewards for me, on those efforts, has evaporated completely - and that's probably how the site owners feel about the larger picture. There are much bigger fish to fry, here, than Mr. Robo-Critique Guy - but hand wringing about whether shutting his behavior down would approach illegality needed a little straightening out, as it suggests a fundamental mis-characterization of a very important, larger topic.

JDMvW · February 5, 2015

Hardly anyone says that a private publication can be forced to provide a platform for speech by others. On the other hand, if you invite the public in, then it becomes rather more gray than a hard-line libertarian will admit to, so long as we are a democratic republic of sorts.

As a hard-line authoritarian, I personally have no ideological problem with shutting anyone down.

When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. -Louis Veuillot, a French Ultramontanist

</blockquote>

Norma Desmond · February 5, 2015

Picking up on what JDM is saying, it's frustrating that over the last two years, perhaps administration's most repeated observation about the site is the importance of the "community spirit" and to that end they've cited the survey they did a while back where concern over that community spirit has been expressed and so they've encouraged us to maintain and increase a positive sense of community. Hypocritically, IMO, they've not participated as active members in the community and so, true or not, the perception among a lot of members is that they're running a very top-down (read: authoritarian) ship and are acting somewhat like absentee landlords. When the most visible acts of administration are their banning of members (even though the reprimands and bannings have been perhaps necessarily swift and even effective in some cases), there's a problem. It's got to be balanced by a visible presence that shows another side, that models just that kind of community spirit being asked and sometimes demanded of members.

Wouter Willemse · February 5, 2015

Dutch on the p.net forums. My day is made. I'm still trying to decipher it, but I think I know which photo it critiques :-)

Wouter Willemse · February 5, 2015

On a slightly more serious note, Fred's point about absentee landlordism is, in my view, spot on. This place has a pretty great community atmosphere, but it's increasingly clear, not enough to keep the people engaged, and not enough new blood to keep things fresh and lively.

I'm not sure what to think of a redesign - yes, if done well, it can give a bit of a boost, and make things feel fresh. But somehow it feels like painting over rotten wood. But this isn't the first thread in recent history that touches on this point (won't be the last either), and the landlord hasn't shown up on any of the occassions lately. So, I'm not expecting much anymore. We'll just have to vote one day who will turn off the lights and close the door on the way out, I guess. Maybe whichever the member the OP meant would make a nice candidate for that task ;-)

Matt Laur · February 5, 2015

I'm still trying to decipher it

</blockquote>

I wouldn't spend any time on that!

We'll just have to vote one day who will turn off the lights and close the door on the way out, I guess.

</blockquote>

That's the problem. The lights are already out. And one only has to hit one's toes on the furniture in the dark a few times before heading for the door seems like a sensible option.

Brad_ · February 5, 2015

>>> This place has a pretty great community atmosphere, but it's increasingly clear, not enough to keep the people engaged, and not enough new blood to keep things fresh and lively. I'm not sure what to think of a redesign - yes, if done well, it can give a bit of a boost, and make things feel fresh. But somehow it feels like painting over rotten wood.

Yes. A new design would be welcome. But... It's still difficult, while trying my best to be objective, visualizing how new and younger potential members would be interested in participating in many of the current discussions - some subjects being rehashed on and on for what seems like years.

Not trying to be harsh (I don’t know how to soften this), but it really is, more or less, an old mans club, sporting a predictable and cast in concrete ponderous dynamic. Though I rarely go there, that dynamic very much reminds me of the old dude get-togethers you see at McDonalds on Sunday mornings, where a group of five or six will be rehashing politics and what’s wrong with the world in raised voices over senior-priced coffee.

bobatkins · February 5, 2015

Anybody can be banned if their "contributions" to the site hurt the site. If the contributions don't hurt the site, then there's no reason to ban them. Unless someone is making comments for some other reason than supporting the site, whether those comments are useful or not is in the eye of the reader. Only if they were being made for some nefarious reason would removing that poster be considered.

There is no practical way to force anyone to give a useful critique, even if they are capable of doing so.

Landrum Kelly · February 5, 2015

The site can determine its own rules regarding critiques, as long as they are applied equally and in a non-discriminatory fashion.

As for constitutional questions, however, the site engages in interstate commerce and thus could theoretically be subject to federal jurisdiction--even though it is privately owned. (See the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States">Heart of Atlanta Motel case</a> as the classic example.)

None of that is strictly relevant here, since setting rules and guidelines for critiques does not in itself violate any constitutional right or federal law. Privately-owned sites would have to work pretty hard to find themselves in federal courts for any kind of violation. I am sure that some manage to do that, but it would be most unusual--and the violations would have to be blatant. Photo.net is safe on these issues.

--Lannie

gordonjb · February 5, 2015

Well yes clearly what this site needs about now is banning of more members, that will straighten things out. After all kicking people off of the site has worked so well in the past.

Even if the comments amount to nothing more than "useless platitude" at least someone noticed the image upload and acknowledged having seen and liked the image, around here that in itself is a scarcity. What's the harm? If this were an active site geared toward meaningful critique then perhaps taking issue with the quality of comments would seem reasonable. As for a fresh new redesigned site saving PN...... hahahaha.

john_h.1 · February 5, 2015

"I've been looking at his posts and they are all almost bot-like repetitions of the same, one-sentence, useless platitudes. He really isn't helping the process or the photographers and I assume is only trying to get his review count high (much like having thousands of "friends" on facebook). Is there any moderator that can do something about it?"

</blockquote>

Why is this even a concern? What detriment and ruin occurs if such a one sentence comment appears in critique?

Norma Desmond · February 6, 2015

Not trying to be harsh (I don’t know how to soften this), but it really is, more or less, an old mans club, sporting a predictable and cast in concrete ponderous dynamic. Though I rarely go there, that dynamic very much reminds me of the old dude get-togethers you see at McDonalds on Sunday mornings, where a group of five or six will be rehashing politics and what’s wrong with the world in raised voices over senior-priced coffee.

</blockquote>

This is not unlike the tone of the OP. This comment is quite ironically putting down a core group of people who regularly participate in some of the PN forums, who support the site by being regular contributors to discussions, and who've remained active despite the growing malaise which can be found here. Seems like the last group of people we'd want to offend! I like hanging out in the Philosophy forum which most people stay away from because of a lack of interest just as I tend to stay away from gear discussions for lack of interest. Yet there are a couple of members who regularly come into Philosophy to make sarcastic comments about there being too much talk there and not enough photography, as if there is no place else on the this site for them to go. This is a diverse community and I hope the tone of the comment I quoted isn't representative of most people on the site, since I would guess most people are happy to go to the areas of the site they enjoy and simply stay away from discussions they don't. As for the put down of the "old dude get togethers" at McDonald's, my dad recently passed away and I've spent a lot of time in Florida the last ten years or so where I could witness and listen in and sometimes join in these discussions. These guys are still alive, still functioning, and still engaged. And they show interest in being with each other and sharing with each other no matter what the topic and no matter how many times similar things get discussed and rehashed. More power to them! Many of their contemporaries are, instead, lying in hospital or hospice beds waiting to die. I guess it's all just a matter of perspective. I find the old guys hanging out at McDonald's or in coffee shops exhilarating and only hope that when I'm their age I have the passion and wits to be out there talking politics, religion, and anything else that comes to mind. Most of the caring and thoughtful younger people I know wouldn't be turned off by this even if they didn't want to join the old dudes. They would be happy to let it exist alongside whatever activities at McDonald's they wanted to engage in. That could be true of PN as well. We don't have to offend or be "harsh" toward older members in order to attract newer ones. As a matter of fact, I'd venture to say that harsh comments about groups of people would be the turnoff, and not the groups of people engaged in unpopular discussions. Maybe a good motto to consider would be "Live and let live."

Sign In

Can a frequent reviewer be banned?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in