An ambivalent rating system?

[philip_carlo_jorgensen]

<p>To receive ratings can sometimes be a very…eh…shall we say, a surprising experience for me. Maybe there are others who also do not always quite get the meaning/psychology of it all. <br>

Sometimes I get the impression that some people vote in a “moral” way, meaning that if the photo is controversial or not pretty it gets a low rating disregarding whether it is an interesting or well executed picture. <br>

And also the other way around: Quite often I notice that a picture with e.g. a pretty girl receives higher ratings than a picture with a less pretty girl. But then it is the girl you are rating and not – as it should be on a photo site – the quality of the picture itself. <br>

I would argue that good and interesting pictures are not necessarily beautiful pictures portraying gorgeous models hanging around in dull apartments, orange sunsets or flowers with saturated colors. Some of the best photos I’ve seen are ugly. But they are also fantastic and deserve credit because they are unforgettable, well seen, well executed and well thought out. They give me something I did not have before. Whereas many of the sugary pictures only give me pangs of nausea and “mental diabetes” and I learn nothing from them.<br>

<br /> At other times I get the feeling that some people shy away from rating “1” or “2” because it sends a signal in your own statistics (Ratings Given) that you have an aggressive or hostile personality. <br>

On the other hand I also get the impression that some shy away from giving ratings above “5” because pictures given a “6” or a “7” end up in your statistics called “Photos rated highest by this member”, and for some reason some do not want to endorse/promote others in this way. <br>

So I sometimes get the impression that there is too much of a fiercely competitive atmosphere where "the end justifies the means". That is probably also why the site has deemed it necessary not to reveal ratings for a picture until the group of raters is larger than five persons. In order to camouflage who actually voted what. In order to avoid revenge rating later on.<br>

<br /> Sometimes I e.g. receive ratings from more or less the same little group of persons over and over again, eagerly dishing out a generous “3” or thereabout to whatever picture I may upload. Why this faithfulness if they clearly do not think much of my pictures? Why do they not just ignore my pictures? <br>

Other times I get the impression that one person possess more than one account / identity, and uses them in a coordinated way to either promote or bash in a targeted way. <br>

And sometimes I get very surprised when I enter one of my steady rater’s account and see a monomanic “7”-rating given to a myriad of truly mediocre pictures all made by the same other member. A coincidence? An alliance? Double identity? <br>

Other times I get the impression of strategic thinking on somebody’s part, when e.g. someone feels that “their” genre or category is being challenged…<br>

And sometimes I just get the impression of equipment bias - even to a degree where I think that this site might discreetly be sponsored by Canon having noticed that Canon-equipment and Canon-owners get far more praised than is the case of Nikon. Just watch the equipment pages, where the latest gear reviews of Nikon are actually pretty old and never very favourable. But Canon...oh, oh..<br>

And then there is of course myself and my own blindness to the mediocre quality of my “darlings”/my pictures. I guess we all love the thing we do so much that we actually do not want to realize that our work is not as great as we would wish... But again, that does not cancel out my initial doubts about the sincerity and honesty of the ratings dished out sometimes. The motives can indeed be varied…<br>

Best regards<br>

Philip</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Philip, I think I could have writing most of your observations myself. You are right the system is broken, and yet, probably, nothing much better has been developed to replace it.<br>

I have drawn the conclusion since many years. I don't use it anymore since years.<br>

The only worthwhile in sense of "ratings" of photos are the comments and discussions, when they go beyond simple back-tapping or spanking.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Philip: I applaud you for taking the time and effort to post this thread. But I suspect t you've wasted all of that. Most of what you've said has been said multiple times before. Admin promised in a previous thread that the new and improved PN would include an overhauled rating system; we'll just have to play the old waiting game if we really are interested in continuing to have dialogue over how many ratings can sit on the head of a pin. For whatever it's worth, my motivation in continuing to ask for ratings (primarily on my abstract images) is to gain additional views and hopefully additional, useful critiques.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>You are of course right, Michael, in mentioning that all that has already been said numerous times. You are also right that we are all waiting for the new rating system promised by the administration. We will then see whether the system has been broken since long due to systemic deficiencies or because of consistent human error. I have my fears.<br>

It is always good that members formulate themselves on the subject and never wasted efforts.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>" . . . never wasted efforts . . ." I should have mentioned that my comment to Philip was at least intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Sorry if it didn't come across clearly, Anders. I was referring to many posts on previous threads leading me to think that most subscribers/members are tired of reading about ratings. </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I recognized the tongue and the cheek thing :)<br>

If people don't wish to read something it is very easy not to. I just think we should all always be invited to formulate ourselves on any subject. Philip's text above is very good and on a very central subject here on Photonet..</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>I get your point, Anders. Philip did do an excellent job in laying out his concerns.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Tell you the truth I am shocked by the ambivalence of Online rating systems. Sometimes they make you feel as if you are canoeing upstream without a paddle. It is better to find a niche of real people who will appreciate your work rather than rely on anonymous and dubious online rating systems.</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>Glad I do not need to worry about ratings at my level. Do like advice. Do not know anything about ratings on PN but going to venture if they do not like it, it was not meant for them at your level.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>Many have been annoyed with the rating system and it is hard to get any useful information out of it except several people looked at your photo for a least a few seconds and rated it 1-7 on their personal standards. So if you see a lot 5,6 maybe a 7, you know folks generally liked your shot. A 3 (below average, :-0 ) may mean different things to people rating. Below average of photos on PN, below average of the average skilled photographer, below average of the average person that picks up a camera. Some ratings could be an accidental miss click that can not be undone. Don't let it get to you. While yes it is a bummer when you put up a shot you want to share and you see the 3, some people may be rating your shot compared to work done by truly gifted, talented masters of photography or some may be just inept raters. You don't know who may be rating that day, it is a slice of society.</p>

<p>A rating system similar to the 12 elements of merit used by the PPA might be fun and provide a little more useful information in developing your photography. You may see what people thought you did well, what you need work to on, was it the subject verses the photo.</p>

<p>Here is a <a href="http://www.ppa.com/competitions/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1792">link to the 12 elements of merit</a>.</p>

<p>Other people may prefer only a simple thumbs up, I like it, Love it and if you didn't like it don't say anything and move on.</p>

<p>We'll see what comes. Don't stress over it. Not worth it.</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>The most annoying experience I have had with oversimplified ratings systems like the one Photonet has used for years is when I received top marks from an anonymous individual and you do not have the faintest idea why ! ! </p>

<p>Thanks Mark, I will look at the 12 elements. Sounds interesting.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"Sometimes they make you feel as if you are canoeing upstream without a paddle. It is better to find a niche of real people who will appreciate your work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's great if you are looking for a pat on the back. If you want genuine critiquing, it should include those who may not.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"The most annoying experience I have had with oversimplified ratings systems like the one Photonet has used for years is when I received top marks from an anonymous individual and you do not have the faintest idea why ! !"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most complaints in the past arose from the low votes. The complaints often featured a justification for the complaint. Namely that low votes without critiques explaining why the vote was made didn't help the complainer learn. Mysteriously, there were scant complaints about high votes with no explanation of why it was made. Casting doubt on lack of learning being the motivation for the complaint as opposed to bruised egos.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>The real problem with the rating system is actually not the deficiencies of the system or the absurdity of the raters, but the fact that the result of all that is used to structure the visibility of members portfolios and individual photos: top rated photos, top rated photographers, top rated new photos, recently liked photos etc etc.</p>

<p>One could imaging a photographer web-community which employed remunerated professional curators chosen among the members to identify high quality photos (ref 12 criteria or other elaborated systems) . Then we could leave to the social media type of photo-sharing sites to do what they do very well themselves and make Photonet a place for serious photographers looking for ways and means to improve further. </p>

<p>However, like Michael mentioned above we will patiently wait for the Photonet 2.0 to see what is up, and then, maybe, eventually relaunch ideas for 3.0. </p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>I appreciate your perspectives Anders. I had not thought of those concerns.</p>

[philip_carlo_jorgensen]

<p>Interesting point, Anders. Another thing that strikes me as strange is that my photos often receive e.g. 10 different ratings but there are only 6 visible names. I have barred the possibility of anonymous rating. Anyone who can explain that to me?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Philip, administration releases fewer names than the total number of rates and releases the names in groups so that users cannot track who's rating them and try to discover who's giving them low rates so they may retaliate. The whole thing is worth a big laugh and not much more.</p>

<p>The only reason I put my photos up for ratings is that it's the only way to get them to appear at the bottom of threads like this, which is an unfortunate policy that I wish would have changed long ago, because I'd rather not be involved with ratings at all as a means to visibility.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Fred, there are only three photos shown. Yours plus two others will be a shown when<strong> you</strong> open the page. Others would mostly not see your photos. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

That's not the case, Anders. The photos rotate and everyone will see three. We don't always see our own. It will rotate

and many others have told me they've seen mine at the bottom of thread pages. I've received several critiques because

of that visibility and have found other photographers to critique that way. Very often I see others' photos and not my own. As I say, the photos shown rotate.

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>(1) Fred, there are only three photos shown.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correct.<br /> *</p>

<blockquote>

<p>(2) Yours plus two others will be a shown when<strong> you</strong> open the page.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Incorrect.</p>

<p>When there are more than three commentators on a thread who have Photos available to be shown, then those four or more Photos cycle around no matter whose user account it is, which is opening the thread to read.</p>

<p>It is certainly possible that if "you" open the thread that "your" photo will not be visible to "you" - if there are more than four Photos available to be seen.<br /> *</p>

<blockquote>

<p>(3) Others would mostly not see your photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Illogical conclusion, even if part two (above), were correct.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Addendum: Fred was writing at the same time as I.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I have the impression that I almost always see my own photos among the three despite not having used the rating system since years. I might be wrong. Below it shows one of mine, one of John's and... one of Fred's.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>"Illogical conclusion, even if part two (above), were correct." <br>

Not really William. If I had been, right than two photos would be "shared" between all the people that have contributed to the thread. </p>

[William Michael]

<p>Well we'll just have to agree to disagree, Anders about that particular point of Game Theory, Probability and Logic.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Norma Desmond]

Anders, at the bottom of the threads you will see photos you've put up for ratings regardless of what your

current habits are. If they were ever put up for ratings, no matter how long ago, they will appear as part of the random set of photos cycling through

for view at the bottom of threads. I often see my own as well. I believe that's because many people who post in the threads

in which I participate do not post their photos for ratings. So mine come up often merely because of lack of entries from

the other participants in the thread.