Rating Photos on Photo.net

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>I have read the information on Rating provided on site, and, no offense, it seems rather simplistic and wispy. </p>

<p>In the short time I have been participating here, I have rated only one excellent architectural photo -- I gave it a six. Once I had done it, I stopped and thought about the process, and haven't rated anything since.</p>

<p>Here is the thing. I would never give or expect to receive a perfect rating. Navajo weavers purportedly always left a small deliberate error in the finest rug, since the Gods don't like perfection. The definition of perfection is also subjective, each of us has different standards.</p>

<p>I would not give a bad rating. I see no value in that, since a constructive comment offers the photographer opportunities that a bad rating does not.</p>

<p>I think that however excellent the exposure, technique, composition, subject matter is a determining factor in ratings or comments. If by luck or design the photographer has a fantastic subject, human or otherwise they will get high ratings. A witty title, implied story, popular political statement can also receive excellent ratings.</p>

<p>All that said, I feel that providing constructive comments, and rating photos are a duty as a community member, like voting in the real world.</p>

<p>If someone has a clear and concise take on rating, I would find it useful.</p>

<p>If through this question, I am entering an area of page long and multi page discussion, I will cheerfully take "no" or no response as a reply!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>When I get threes, I know I must be doing something right.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>Sandy, I, too, have had some frustration with ratings. My own rubric, developed using my own criteria, is as follows: 1 - truly awful, meaningless, and unworthy of the server space it occupies; 2 - a snapshot in the lowest and least meaningful sense, what I took as an 8-year-old with my Polaroid; 3 - common snapshot without any artistic or higher intent; 4 - a reasonable effort to make a thoughtful image, but without finesse; 5 - a good image made with thoughtful intent and obvious technical competence; 6 - very good, engaging, technically excellent, and artistically powerful. Memorable; 7 - Extraordinary in both technique and artistic effect.</p>

<p>Now, this is my own set of criteria, not what I believe I have seen from others. I have mostly ceased from seeking or giving ratings (unless it is 5's, 6's, and a very rare 7), and now concentrate on written, meaningful (hopefully) critiques. The number rating system, divorced from written analysis, is just too devoid of meaning.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Rating criticism posts used to be almost daily. <br /><br />Like then, one of the issues whas that low ratings should come with an explanation because it offers constructive insight while such insight is somehow unavailable as to why an image was deemed so worthy. Both high and low ratings are potentially arbitrary or unfit for analytical use. The twist here is that it is the rater, arguing for low rating explanations rather then the recipient who often seemed to have a bruised ego.<br>

The ratings, once an issue of great angst featuring revenge ratings, cries of unfairness and alleged in inadequacies eventually evolved in to the simple format and governance used to this day. It is probably best to treat ratings reflecting the whims of the raters involved. Ideally, ratings would come with explanations but that has been promoted for a very long time with little success. I recommend seeking out individual members who willing to critique photos posted here or otherwise provided.<br>

<br /><br /><br /></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I rate because people request them and I figure that's playing my part in the community. I give about half an hour a month or so to the task. I consider it a separate activity from commenting. Occasionally, I'm moved to make a comment on a photo I rate, but often I just set about the task of rating. I give both high and low ratings because I run across photos I think are well done and photos I think are not. I comment on photos more frequently but don't put any burden of commenting on those kind enough to take time to rate. Whatever level of participation people do is fine with me and there's little enough participation that I'm not going to put additional demands on those who participate in a particular way.</p>

<p>I request ratings for only one reason now. It's the only way to get your photos to appear at the bottom of threads, which I happen to think is a nice feature. Submission for ratings is the single criteria used for that, which I think and have told administration I think is completely ridiculous. I usually don't even follow up to look at the ratings I get because I don't really care. Even though I don't care about the ratings I get, I figure for some people it does mean something, so that's why I rate. If nothing else, it shows that someone at least viewed their photo so they did establish a bit of a connection with someone else, who at least bothered to push a button upon seeing their photo, which is probably nice to know.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>It's hard to get noticed, anywhere. For some people, a non-interactive number on an undefined ratings scale is sufficient to see real improvement in their photography. Sometimes that's enough. But I can say, from my own experience, even a small bit of valid criticism is immensely valuable. Sometimes you are so enamored with your wonderful picture that you can't see the glaring fault. A photo.net member, rating you on a numeric scale only, might see the glaring fault and assign your wonderful photo a 1.</p>

<p>That's probably the single worst part of the ratings system here. Since photo.net doesn't identify what rating someone gave you, you have no clue who gave you the low rating nor why, so you can't ask them what it was that made them rate your photo so low.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Since photo.net doesn't identify what rating someone gave you, you have no clue who gave you the low rating nor why, so you can't ask them what it was that made them rate your photo so low.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One can't send so easily venomous messages and commit acts of revenge as much to givers of undesired ratings either.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Lannie -- too modest! Thanks.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>David, thanks for commenting. My idea on a scale is not that different than yours.<br>

I do think after reading your comment, John's and Fred G's that comments and ratings are separate issues, and probably should be. I have not requested rating simply because I didn't think to do so. I have requested comment / criticism a number of times, and have received mostly useful ones, and nothing negative. Some have motivated me to produce revised versions of shots which were clear improvements. <br>

Possibly the difference between the two, a rating is quick and easy, a visceral response to a "finished product" which the photographer can accept or not, and if good spirited, use as a simple yardstick to measure his perception of his work vs. others. Critique and comment, suggest a "work in progress" and require a lot more work and thought by the critic commentator. They give the photographer help in improving their skills and vision.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>John H, thanks for your input. I do believe mentally separating the two functions can be helpful. As to venom, I think a good spirit and consistently trying to be fair, developing a history, will shine through. I haven't drawn many toxic replies even though I have the tendency to be fairly plain spoken.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Fred G. -- I always learn something from your thoughtful and considered posts. Thank you.<br>

Possibly your process of dedicating specific time to commenting and rating, or even thinking I will do "x" number of ratings and "y" number of comments in a given time period would meet my personal community service requirements. In respect to explaining ratings, how would the Finished vs. In progress idea work for you?</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Patrick S., Thanks for commenting. It is very hard to get good criticism, and when you get it , usually very valuable. If ratings and comments are split by "completeness" of work, what do you think? If you have other ideas, please drop back.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes, I think ratings are pretty much a one-off and impersonal kind of communication, anonymous as they are. And I think comments are more open-ended and can sometimes lead to further discussion and even reciprocation. In the best cases, commenting has allowed me to establish a healthy back and forth with several photographers here whose work I check in on and discuss with them and where they check in on my work and connect with me. Over time, we get to know each other's goals and start to have a sense of what we're trying to do with our photography, and in time we can, because of that, give each other more personal critiques taking into consideration the body of work that's developing and a sense of the way the other photographer is using the language of photography. We can discuss more important things than how something should be cropped or whether it should be tried in black and white, for instance, how we see the work progressing over time, how a new photo might relate to work in the photographer's past, how it might or might not move his vision forward, how it might represent a furthering of or, on the other hand, a change in themes and individual approach, etc. Ratings accomplish nothing like that.</p>

[dragoslav]

Of the five or six 'requests for critique' two were very constructive and useful and the rest were ignored.

[michaellinder]

<p>"If by luck or design the photographer has a fantastic subject, human or otherwise they <strong>will</strong> get high ratings." Sandy, with all due respect, I disagree, if you used the word "will" as a prediction. </p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Michael -- I stand corrected. Careless usage on my part -- I do think a variety of subject factors can have a disproportionate impact. Probably should have said "may well" and "higher".</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>When I get threes, I know I must be doing something right.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's all I seem to get. The only people who give me a rating is this small group, and they always give me 3s. I only ask for ratings when I'm feeling especially self-hating! :)</p>

[pjmeade]

<blockquote>

<p>"When I get threes, I know I must be doing something right"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I could't agree more. <br>

I've had lots or work that's been published internationally that's had poor ratings on PN (but to confound that theory, other work that's sold has done quite well). But commercially successful work has also been rubbished by the Royal Photographic Society too. <br>

I think that unless images have immediate apeal (HDR, birds or breasts), or are outside people's experience or expectations, then they are not going to do well. <br>

Does that change my activity to be more popular/populist? Well, yes. I tend to delete images that don't do well and tend to add material that may be well received. Another change I have made is that I have accepted that just because an image here isn't a success here, doesn't mean it isn't worthy.<br>

PN must be doing something right as I've been coming back for more for over 10 years.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Barry, your observation about the small group is correct. I've noticed this too.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>In my onion 'one' picture does not rate a photographer. You have to evaluate a photographer's entire portfolio before you can make a determination on what they are doing right or wrong.</p>

[jasonsmith894]

This is a very intriguing thread. I too remember when

ratings were not annonymous. I wasn't aware there was

an issue with revenge ratings, but I could see that

happening. I do recall that when the ratings were not

annonymous that you were much more likely to get an

explanation for a low rating. That, in my opinion, was

much more helpful than the current system in which

ratings can seem entirely random. I do recall though

that overall ratings seemed to be higher then (I

remember more ratings in the 5-6 range; though my

images may have been better back then!!) I agree with

some of the comments above about the small group of

raters doling out 3s. I also appreciate hearing how

others rate images, and admit my views are not far off

from David's view. Honestly, I find the whole rating

system to be frustrating, but feel compelled to request

ratings to increase the visibility of my work.

 

As others have said, the critiques offered are far more

valuable. Unfortunately, many images recieve little to no

feedback and sometimes comments are not that helpful.

I try to offer feedback on images that need additional

work, but this is time consuming and I don't have a ton

of free time. I also struggle with how to leave feedback

on many of the images in the critique forum as some are

simply snapshots and I don't have much to contribute; I

also worry anout being too critical as i would never want

to discourage anyone from continuing with photography.

 

Anyhow, I'm glad someone started this thread and I

enjoy reading the thoughtful comments about the rating

system. I too will continue to seek and give ratings, but

know the system is flawed.

[DavidTriplett]

<p>I went back to review who makes ratings, versus who makes critiques on my photos. It is very interesting to me that about 80% or more of the numeric ratings are by individuals who have never written a critique on one of my images. Now I'll go and see what I think of the portfolios of those raters. I'm really curious to investigate the correlation between ratings and competence. I'll let you know what I find.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>David -- very interesting! Thanks! Sandy</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>Sandy, another thing I have observed in my own behaviors: I started out trying to give written critiques on as many images as possible. This quickly became enormously time consuming. Then I began focusing on images that I found engaging or by photographers I had come to appreciate. Still, I could spend all of my time critiquing others' work, and neglecting my own. Now, I am trying to provide critiques mostly on a fairly small group of likewise engaged photographers, and on selected images of those beginners who appear to really want and need feedback. Once a week or so I'll work through the images which have requested ratings, as a courtesy I hope others will grant me. We'll have to see how this works out. It would be nice to develop a "working group" of photographers who relate well, can speak their minds respectfully, and appreciate one another's work without becoming a mutual adoration society. I kind of feel this developing with you, Alf, Lannie, Ken, Maurizio, Greg, Jason, Pierre, Holger, Fred, Michael, and others. I find myself giving preference in my time and efforts to those who do the same for me. I wonder if this is how it plays out for others as well?</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>David, since I have magical a priori powers, I am confident that you won't find any meaningful correlations. Some folks who rate photos on pn seem to have certain rational criteria for doing so. Others may have no criteria at all. And then we have the traditional date ratings or revenge ratings.</p>

<p>I am grateful that you included me in the group of named photographers. You have a good point by asserting that you'd rather spend time with those photographers you can trust to be honest and also courteous in providing constructive criticism.</p>